Why manufacturers owe the gun community a modicum of professionalism.

[grampajack]

http://aattp.org/terrifying-new-bullet-designed-for-maximum-suffering-introducing-the-r-i-p/

I stumbled on this while searching for something for another thread and couldn't not post it here. This is exactly why we all owe it to our cause to maintain a certain level of professionalism, and this applies tenfold to manufacturers, trainers, groups, and organizations because of how many people see it when they make complete asses out of themselves. And the leftist sensationalist media, like the dogs they are, are always ready to pounce on anything that paints gun owners and the firearms industry in a negative light.

For those who are unaware of the irony here, "RIP" ammunition might possibly be the most laughed at product on the firearms market right now (at least in my circles). IMHO it's even more pathetic than the "exotic" shotgun shells we see at gunshows because these people actually take themselves seriously. I'm not sure what's worse, making crappy ammo and marketing it to people to use for self defense, or using juvenile marketing tactics that make the gun community look like a bunch of bloodthirsty nitwits who read too much soldier of fortune in high school. Again, IMHO, this company is guilty of doing both of those things.

But that's not to say that this company is the only one, and at least maybe they can be commended for not jumping on the zombie themed bandwagon of late...

I posted this because I'm constantly taking flak from some people when I suggest that such unprofessional conduct is hurting our cause. "Show me one instance where it's actually hurt our cause," they challenge. Well, here it is right here. This is how the non shooting half of our society views such antics, and it's not only turning them off of guns and the gun community, but it's giving them a false impression of how we view self defense.

In short, I would implore everyone in the gun community to use some common sense and think about how your actions might be viewed by the public at large, and then further twisted by liberal nutjobs who fancy themselves as firearms experts. I would also like to take the time to thank companies like Lehigh Defense, Barnes, etc. for letting their products' performance speak for itself, and for doing gun owners a service by making competent products, and for doing the gun community at large a service by keeping your image professional.

 

[azrocks]

Those look like a feed jam waiting to happen.

And yes, I agree 100% with your sentiment.

 

[200Apples]

.
The author of that piece seems to possess a unique perspective on some gun owners...

 

[grampajack]

.
The author of that piece seems to possess a unique perspective on some gun owners...

It's Freudian for sure. I once read a piece written by a psychologist on why people fear weapons, and it stems from their own homicidal desires. They assume because they can't be trusted with a gun that the average person also can't be trusted. They know they're the type who would murder someone over a parking space, and thus assume that everyone else is just as much of a maniac as they are. Therefore they assume anyone with a concealed carry permit is a threat to them. Or they know they're too irresponsible to safely use a gun, and therefore assume that no one can safely use one. So they see concealed carry holders as a threat to them from negligent discharge.

Something tells me this guy probably falls into both categories.

 

[TomJ]

So the author is a self admitted former psychotic who wanted to shoot people to make them suffer, so gun owners are a "peculiar breed"? It seems to me like he's the one with problems he needs to resolve.

I do agree with the OP that naming ammunition RIP feeds into the negative stereotype the anti's try to label us with. I won't buy gun related products that have those types of names.

 

[jdc1244]

...then further twisted by liberal nutjobs who fancy themselves as firearms experts.

And this is where you lose the argument and your thread premise fails as an ad hominem fallacy, a hasty generalization fallacy, and a strawman fallacy – liberals own guns, enjoy the shooting sports, and are members of the gun-owning community as well.

Name-calling, ridiculous personal attacks, and false accusations is what reflects poorly on gunowners.

 

[barnbwt]

Thought this was about lower quality, anticompetitive business practices, preorder scams, and general vaporware-ity...RIP is just marketing, yo; been happening since Clovis Points were trademarked.

TCB

 

[Pat Riot]

I always look at products like this and think "How would I explain my use of something like this to a jury?".

 

[Demi-human]

I am sorry to disagree. I mean no disrespect. And do agree that we should all act with dignity and an image that shows the 'High Road' of firearms ownership. However, after reading that drivel, covered head to foot in click bait ads, all I could conclude was typical snowflake whining.

I do not subject myself to the Hauge conventions for I am a free citizen. Un-enlisted in any military force.

Bullets are deadly, more deadly bullets are not wrong. They are efficient.

Bullets do not knock humans down. Nor do they leave "huge" gaping holes in them. Per the discussions on hollow points earlier, the most probable and effective trait would be to limit pass throughs. In effect making them safer to bystanders.

More wound channels enable more blood loss, facilitating sooner unconsciousness. In essence, more humane conflict resolution. How could something that causes a massive increase in trauma, also extend suffering.

One will run across this kind of contemptuous ranting from time to time. Rest assured this is not to sway any fence sitter. This is subliminal behavior modification. Any snowflake that reads that 'article' is all ready in agreement. Anyone with conscience, that owns a guns, obviously does not think in this manner. I don't, I am sure you don't as well. If anyone wishes harm or worse to me or my own why on earth would I NOT use the most effective ammunition possible?

Many have said this about the Zombie craze. Now it's just an eye roll joke of a fad. Not to mention the whole of the zombie culture begins and end in the liberal arts. Hollywood is not the populous. (Though the populous of Hollywood may be zombies.)

With all the lead free regulations what are we to do? Toss away our icky guns?
I do not let my opponent dictate my thoughts. Please don't falI for it either.
You seem as though you are a genuine and caring individual.I too care what other humans think of me and my activities. But many people are already enthralled and no amount of reason can compel them to freedom. At least we are among friends presently.

Please take no offense to my opinions. Some things can not be helped. I may be one.


(resubmitted, verbatim after a tablet crash this afternoon) 8)

 

[FROGO207]

I remember reading about these rounds when they first came out. My thought then was "I wonder how long the company will stay in business'. I never thought it was anything but a fancy gimmick at best. Now the zombie craze is trying to cash in on several successful shows on the tube that go on that premise and the younger consumers that it would appeal to IMHO. After all zombies,unicorns and such are no real threat to us.

 

[grampajack]

And this is where you lose the argument and your thread premise fails as an ad hominem fallacy, a hasty generalization fallacy, and a strawman fallacy – liberals own guns, enjoy the shooting sports, and are members of the gun-owning community as well.

Name-calling, ridiculous personal attacks, and false accusations is what reflects poorly on gunowners.

So you deny the author of that "piece" was a liberal nutjob?

 

[Robert]

Calling people names, any people, is counter productive and unprofessional. In addition it is against the rules and the mission of THR. If we wish to be taken seriously then we need to present ourselves in a serious manner and not stoop to petty name calling and personal attacks. And we, THR, will not allow it to continue.

 

[hdwhit]

Demi-human wrote:
More wound channels enable more blood loss...

But that is at least partially offset by the fact that smaller wound channels make it easier for clotting blood to staunch the bleeding.

 

[mjsdwash]

this guy is surely an idiot, with no basic understanding of metallurgy or ballistics, but at least he managed to not confuse the Hague with Geneva. The real shame of this ammo is that because most people shot with it will survive, the surgeons will have to dig around for those fragments. They may be silly for defense, but I bet they will put a hole in a glove just fine

 

[Schlegel]

The real shame of this ammo is that because most people shot with it will survive, the surgeons will have to dig around for those fragments. They may be silly for defense, but I bet they will put a hole in a glove just fine

In a surgical glove? No. No they won't. No matter what hyperbole is used to describe them in marketing or fearmongering, bullets aren't "razor sharp".

 

[grampajack]

In a surgical glove? No. No they won't. No matter what hyperbole is used to describe them in marketing or fearmongering, bullets aren't "razor sharp".

You wouldn't catch me digging around for one in someone who might have God only knows what. Not that that's the issue here, but I do imagine those things leave pretty sharp edges when they tear loose.

 

[armoredman]

I am also surprised that this product still survives, but if Blammo Ammo could sell Dragons Breath for many years, hey, people will buy anything. George Carlin put it best, "Nail two things together that have never been nailed together before, and some schmuck will buy it!" Ever seen the 12 gauge "bolo" round?
Personally, I would never use the things, have seen serious reviews online that state that the actual terminal performance is "lacking", but I actually know one person I considered well informed that carries these as his self defense loads.
I would add surgeons have been digging for shell fragments since artillery was invented, so I think with modern medical techniques and equipment, the surgeon will probably be OK. Unless he feels like suing RIP...

 

[Demi-human]

I concur that this ammunition is is just a 'cool looking' gimmick. As we know buck shot works better than bird shot for things that are not birds. But if I wanted to carry a very warm load of gummie bears for self defense I would not listen to gummie bear dislikers that some how my choice is scary and causes suffering. Remember there was a reason for me shooting. Yes a reason other than murder.
I am personally afronted by people wearing pajamas and slippers into public. I tell them so. It doesn't matter how many tattoos or how much purple hair. However I am quite sure all these well adjusted slaves of welfare don't pay me a whit of attention. Yet we are supposed to act like they are some how the 'new normal'. Because they can use a keyboard. That their ignorance and fear mongering is some how equal. It isn't. We are free to do, dress and act as we see fit in this great land. But that does not mean it goes without consequence. Yes I know, a double edged sword. But I am confident that this sword will cut the devil first.

It may not be worded nicely but I am sure those here understand what I am playing at.

 

[armoredman]

Thanks, you just gave me a visual of a shotgun spewing gummie bears...

 

[Tirod]

The OP is asking for us to behave as adults and act with some mature consideration. I get that, it's what we should be doing. As for the main stream media, I'm unconcerned with their linguistic gymnastics - they will take a position opposite what the gun community has thoughtfully offered no matter what, and then completely reverse themselves if it suits the opportunity. It's about being difficult more than logical. If someone needs an example of that, look at how former FBI head Comey was characterized before and after he was dismissed.

We should care less what they write - however, the more they jump thru hoops to satisfy their meager audience, the more ridiculous they appear and act out in contradictory ways. It further erodes their credibility and also exposes anti gunners when we hear them repeat the fantasies and lies. So, in that, it actually does us a service.

Having actually read SOF magazine in my youth and even attending the premier invitational competition shoot at Chapman's range in Columbia MO tho, I can tell you that no, that magazine and it's writers are not the idiots that the media likes to present. If it appears they were painting an exaggerated view of the worlds ongoing armed conflicts then some more in depth analysis is needed. They were the ONLY news source to be on the ground in combat then, unlike the "reporters" who posted articles from the nearest 3 start hotel and who simply repeated the press releases handed to them.

No, if you needed the real views of people being shot at, you read it. SOF was outside the mainstream news and that is why so many older men disparage it - they had yet to wake up and realize they were getting the nitty gritty details. It simply looked sensationalist at a time when the average gun owner couldn't think past their wood stocked bolt action Winchesters and saw men in camo as ridiculous clowns.

Considering the market for those with skills today, we would likely had to add 50% more troops to replace them in the Mideast, whereas in real life we simply contracted veterans to do the boring job of personal and facility protection without the political entanglements. If there is controversy in that it goes right back to who is reporting the "facts," and what agenda drives them?

I appreciate the position the OP is taking - we should be acting responsibly with firearms. However, by basing assumptions of how we appear when portrayed by our enemies, it then goes to having a perspective tailored by them. Not the facts. We need to be reminded that lions don't allow their sleep to be disturbed by the opinions of lambs. They are going to bleat regardless.

 

[CoalTrain49]

I posted this because I'm constantly taking flak from some people when I suggest that such unprofessional conduct is hurting our cause. "Show me one instance where it's actually hurt our cause," they challenge. Well, here it is right here. This is how the non shooting half of our society views such antics, and it's not only turning them off of guns and the gun community, but it's giving them a false impression of how we view self defense.

Who really cares how the non-shooting half of our society views some asinine marketing of an ammo mfg. All kinds of products get marketed in all manner of ways. It's up to you as an individual to decide if that might be something you want to purchase and use. That simple. It has no reflection what so ever on the type of people who use firearms. Just like not everyone who drives a Ford pick-up is a construction worker or a redneck.

The article was written as a product to sell to anyone who would buy it as trade journalism. It's ill informed and provocative. Basically a piece of garbage that you thought had some merit. Otherwise you wouldn't have posted it.

 

[mjsdwash]

In a surgical glove? No. No they won't. No matter what hyperbole is used to describe them in marketing or fearmongering, bullets aren't "razor sharp".

More pointy than sharp. I dont buy into that whole danger to the surgeon junk, bit I have ripped many surgical gloves working with pointy things