WhiteKnight
Member
I was organizing shelved books today at the local library where I volunteer, and I noticed, much to my chagrin, a 1911 on the cover of a book with a full cartridge (brass, bullet) exiting the muzzle of the gun.
I attempted to shrug this one off, and continued on organizing, if just a bit disjointed.
However, it wasn't five minutes later when I encountered ANOTHER book nearly identical to the first one. However this book pictured a revolver, yet still pictured a full catridge exiting the barrel.
Both books had at least a dozen checkout dates stamped on the back, so it's clear people are actually reading these things. Not to knock the books themselves, as the author may have had nothing at all to do with the cover design and became horrifed upon seeing the fallacy therein.
I know that the average populace probably couldn't tell .22LR from a .50BMG or a neck sizing die from a choke tube, and thus authors (and their editors and cover designers) don't have to have all the technical details down pat. However this just boggles my mind.
I do recall my earlier days before I had shot a firearm, and airguns made up all of my shooting experience. I truly did believe that guns fired the entire cartridge, and it came as a bit of a letdown when I realized the teeny-weeny bullet was the only thing actually coming out of the gun.
I guess some peoples' firearms knowledge is about on par with my own...when I was 7 years old.
We, as responsible well-informed and knowledgeable gun-owners, often lament the idiocy of various gun laws. Though with the common populace as illinformed as the readers of these books, how can we blame them?
Any comments?
I attempted to shrug this one off, and continued on organizing, if just a bit disjointed.
However, it wasn't five minutes later when I encountered ANOTHER book nearly identical to the first one. However this book pictured a revolver, yet still pictured a full catridge exiting the barrel.
Both books had at least a dozen checkout dates stamped on the back, so it's clear people are actually reading these things. Not to knock the books themselves, as the author may have had nothing at all to do with the cover design and became horrifed upon seeing the fallacy therein.
I know that the average populace probably couldn't tell .22LR from a .50BMG or a neck sizing die from a choke tube, and thus authors (and their editors and cover designers) don't have to have all the technical details down pat. However this just boggles my mind.
I do recall my earlier days before I had shot a firearm, and airguns made up all of my shooting experience. I truly did believe that guns fired the entire cartridge, and it came as a bit of a letdown when I realized the teeny-weeny bullet was the only thing actually coming out of the gun.
I guess some peoples' firearms knowledge is about on par with my own...when I was 7 years old.
We, as responsible well-informed and knowledgeable gun-owners, often lament the idiocy of various gun laws. Though with the common populace as illinformed as the readers of these books, how can we blame them?
Any comments?