Are "fashionable" guns a danger?

I threaten to buy my wife a purple gun every time I see one at a gun show.
Click to expand...

My EDC is a purple Ruger.

My wife bought another one another time because it "matched her dress" and so stated. I assure you, she knows what a gun is for. The fact that it matched her dress was just the tipping point.

Oh and just in case anyone thinks the idea of colored guns is new, I present to you our High Standard Sentinel, R-101, nine shot, 22 LR. Circa 1957-59.





I don't have the box, but I'm told they originally came in a really nice jewlery type box, with a satin liner, and were also available in turquoise/chrome and gold/chrome (or nickel). Pretty obviously aimed at the female market. An idea who's time apparently hadn't quite arrived.
 
Last edited:
I am in favor of pink, purple, turquoise, etc colored guns.

Why? you might ask...

Lots of men just won't buy them. You can get some very good deals on GB on a pink handgun because fewer people will bid on it.

And yeah, that doubtless shows my gender bias. I am probably a jerk in other ways as well. :)
 
SD guns aren't designed to "KILL OTHER HUMAN BEINGS" that's democrat speak.

Try instead "Designed to save lives" at least that's what my self defense firearms are designed for, protecting lives and saving life if ever called into service.
 
As a fan of HK for both quality and aesthetics, there's no inherent danger to a reliable and well-built "beautiful" gun, especially a German imported one given Germany's reputation for great engineering in history of firearms manufacture, watchmaking, and even automobiles.

However, getting say, a pink Kel-Tec Pf9 for the color and not a Walther PPS for the ergonomics and magazine capacity is one thing many people who's take the pink Kel-Tec don't really consider for a first, or even not close to first at all, gun purchase, which, in a different world, would make, say, a select-fire MAC11 clone or Ingram original, dangerous if those were both easily legal for civilian ownership and frequently available in oddball color schemes.
 
I have yet to see a real gun that looks like anything I played with when I was a kid. Adding a little color to a gun doesn't make it look less real!

That pink High Standard Sentinel is something I haven't ever seen before! There is no way, as a kid, I would have confused that High Standard with a toy! It doesn't look like a toy.

In fact, the most realistic toy guns we could find that we could find that we could get our hands on were those base metal black cap revolvers with gray cylinders. Something like this: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-ant...803397?hash=item23719a7585:g:G30AAOSwMtxXs2AL

The Rohm revolvers, however, did look like toys: http://www.gunbroker.com/item/613718877
 
There was nothing precise about either of these weapons of mass destruction.
Click to expand...

Considering that the vast majority of handgun shooting victims survive their injuries, these devices were much more "efficient method(s) of precisely dispensing with a human life".
 
OhioGuy said:
I've been looking at the marketing around the new Taurus Spectrum, which isn't too different from a lot of other pocket guns lately.



These guns (whatever their defense worth is...I won't argue ballistics, but I also wouldn't argue with a .380 aimed at me) seem way more trendy than any others. And it's obvious that's where marketing dollars are going.



Sexy-looking models holding them.



Available in chocolate mint, or Miami Vice blue, or pink camo!



Buy several interchangeable panels to match your outfits and your moods!



Some of these guns, both in size but especially style, look more like toys than my kid's nerf guns.



Seems to risk trivializing this. Making concealed carry into a fashion rather than a form of self defense.



Will people be more likely to get sloppy or careless with a gun if they're worried about how it matches their shoes?



At the end of the day, whatever colors and options and soft-touch materials companies come up with, these things are all tools with one main design purpose: KILLING OTHER HUMAN BEINGS.



I don't know. I guess when I saw two young ladies at a gun counter, looking at the color options on LCPs and giggling about which ones will match their eye shadow, it kind of worried me. I'm not sure I like trends that turn weapons into fashion.



Thoughts?
Click to expand...



Hey hey hey. I know you as a guy care about what it looks like too. There is no need for a camo or Marpat or od green gun. ;)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
ritepath said:
SD guns aren't designed to "KILL OTHER HUMAN BEINGS" that's democrat speak.

Try instead "Designed to save lives" at least that's what my self defense firearms are designed for...
Click to expand...
It's a nice thought, but consider that a firearm's utility as a lifesaving tool derives almost entirely from its ability to kill.

While I understand the desire to rhetorically depoliticize firearms by downplaying their role as instruments of death, I view this type of wordplay as facile at best and disingenuous at worst. I prefer to argue why it's morally justifiable for me to use lethal force in extreme circumstances. I would rather not be thought a fool, or worse yet, a liar.
 
Last edited:
If some of you want to argue that guns were not designed to kill (humans or animals), you go right ahead and make your arguments. I find them completely unconvincing and I'd bet that most people would agree with me. It's sort of like saying bows and arrows were designed to put holes into haystacks; or spears were designed to pin up animal hides on cave walls.
 
A good friend of mine runs an LGS back in PA and he does good gunsmithing and Cerrakoting and when I saw a Taurus that he had done a pink Cerrakote job on the slide & frame, that was really awful looking!:eek:
 
"...weapons into fashion..." It's just marketing. Smith did it years ago with their 'Lady Smith' line of revolvers and pistols. Nothing new about it. Smith used the brand name from 1902 through 1921 and again in the '80's.
"...police having a harder time determining whether a gun is real or a toy..." Is mostly about their lack of training and experience.
 
"...police having a harder time determining whether a gun is real or a toy..." Is mostly about their lack of training and experience.
Click to expand...

And your evidence for that, given the existence of replicas that almost look the same, is?

At night with a person pointed a replica at them in a suicide by cop - is not an unknown effect.
 
T. O'Heir said:
"

"...police having a harder time determining whether a gun is real or a toy..." Is mostly about their lack of training and experience.
Click to expand...


Let me place you in a dimly lit room say 25 ft apart and point real/toy firearms at you and see how "well trained" you are.

Take the lil red end off a plastic replica and in low light/dark youd be hard pressed to ID it 100% as fake.

I have an M&P based bb co2 pistol and it is size/shape same as real thing Dark of night youd never know if I pointed your way it was only a bb gun.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
but she does want a gun that she likes to look at
Click to expand...
Come on guys admit it we all buy guns we like to look at. How many of you have purchased the ugliest gun in the store?? WE all buy guns based on how they look. I remember reading about the Beretta PX4 series pistols when they first hit the market and folks saying they were the ugliest thing they ever laid eyes on. Ya'll didn't choose an ugly woman for a wife/girl friend, did you????:eek:
 
Are guns designed to kill?

To be true that is what they were designed for. Guns were originally developed as instruments of war. Minimally, to protect the property and privilege of the lairds. It's still a central aspect of what they do. Later the nobility wanted something to hunt with or compete with so guns evoled in that direction. Most innovation in firearms comes as a result of the pursuit of military and leo contracts. They are certainly developed to wound and kill humans.

But because they have become so widespread in society guns, as a whole have become specialized and their primary purpose, outside of the military and law enforcement is not killing humans or animals. Instead it's sport. Guns long and short have been developed for specific purposes not directly related to killing humans or animals.

Specialized handguns and rifles have been developed for target work.

Handguns (raceguns) for IDPA have become so specialized as to be worthless and impractical as weapons of war, police work or self defense in most situations. Their primary role is not killing or self defense but winning a game.

Other guns are primarily defensive in nature, small back up carry guns are an example. Their killing power is limited and sacrificed for ease of hiding and portability.

Many other rifles are designed as hunting tools and are not any armies first choice as battlefield weapons any longer. I'm not sure any army employs a Thompson Center Encore or anything like it.

So yeah, guns were developed for killing and damaging humans and game. But that is no longer their sole purpose. They can all fire a projectile and are all dangerous. But, outside from the military, their primary use in not in killing.

tipoc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top