Mainsail
Member
I saw this in the Sunday paper and it screams about the hypocrisy of the press. They point out a danger presented by polar bears at this remote Norwegian observatory and felt the need to qualify the existence of the rifle. So what is more likely to occur, a human attacked by a polar bear or a human attacked by a rapist, or a mugger, or car-jacker?
How could you change the caption to make it applicable to urban firearms carry?
EDIT: I guess I should have made more clear that the newspaper story has nothing to do with polar bears or rifles; it’s about a remote observatory. The picture they had was of a man who happens to have a rifle slung across his back. To use the picture they have to qualify the rifle, because people will ask why a man at an observatory needs a gun. Also, there are substantially more muggings, rapes, and car-jackings than there are polar bear attacks. So do the people who might be attacked by a polar bear need a firearm more than the people who live in high crime areas like Washington DC or New York?
How could you change the caption to make it applicable to urban firearms carry?
EDIT: I guess I should have made more clear that the newspaper story has nothing to do with polar bears or rifles; it’s about a remote observatory. The picture they had was of a man who happens to have a rifle slung across his back. To use the picture they have to qualify the rifle, because people will ask why a man at an observatory needs a gun. Also, there are substantially more muggings, rapes, and car-jackings than there are polar bear attacks. So do the people who might be attacked by a polar bear need a firearm more than the people who live in high crime areas like Washington DC or New York?
Last edited: