Rolling Stone is attacking Americans’ gun rights like never before. We’ve seen The Five Most Dangerous Guns In America, an epic Larry Pratt hit piece and How to Beat the NRA In 7 (Not-So-Easy) Steps. If that’s not enough – and it really is – RS also serves-up an interactive America’s Gun Violence Epidemic page. (The publication offers one pro-gun piece, Confessions of a Liberal Gun Lover.) Needless to say, the anti-gun articles are riddled with misinformation, mischaracterization and misdirection. So what’s a gun guy to do? You could write a stern email to Jan Wenner or post a comment underneath the articles in quesiton, but that’s bound to be as effective as, well, gun control. So here are three things you can do to make Rolling Stone – or any other pro-gun control media outlet – eat their words . . .
1. Buy a gun
Talk about win-win: you get a gun and the gun industry gets your money. And no one looks after the interests of gun owners with quite so much oomph as the gun industry. It is, after all, in their best interests to do so. Yes, yes, I know: Bill Ruger sold us out back in the day, as did Smith & Wesson. But today both companies pour millions into the NRA, along with GLOCK, Crimson Trace, Midway and dozens of other gun, ammo and gear makers.
Just as profound: the gun industry’s economic impact on local communities. Yes, yes, I know: anti-gunner extraordinaire Senator Chuck Schumer is the politician representing Illion, New York, home to Remington’s biggest factory. But Remington is withdrawing – slowly, finally – and plenty of other pols with gun industry jobs in their patch know upon which side their bread it buttered.
Besides, the more guns that are out there, the harder it is for the gun grabbers to grab them – regardless of the anti-gun media’s mindless appeals to gun muggles’ fear and ignorance. Speaking of which . . .
2. Take a newbie to the range
As galling as their anti-pistol polemics are, and they most certainly are, Rolling Stone and its ilk aren’t going to convince firearms fence-sitters to join the enemies of Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. They are – as we are – preaching to the converted. To mess with the antis’ media-driven agenda, to beat them at a different game, think outside the net. Give a newbie a real-world taste of firearms freedom.
As the Zen expression asserts, “the map isn’t the territory.” In other words, no words on a page will have as much impact on a newbie’s view about guns as . . . guns. Once you put a gun in their hands, once they fire a firearm or two, their thinking changes. Maybe guns aren’t evil in and of themselves. May I should have one. And if I should have one why should I deny someone else the same right?
I’m not saying that every newbie’s close encounter of the ballistic kind will be a come to Jesus moment (assuming as I do that Jesus would support the right to armed self-defense). But they will never read anti-gun agitprop in quite the same way. You could almost say that range time inoculates people against pro-gun control media bias.
3. Ignore them
TTAG can’t ignore the antis’ attacks. It’s our job to keep you informed on the strategies and tactics gun control advocates and their media lackeys use to erode your gun rights. We have to read this stuff and parse it, day-in, day-out. You can simply ignore it. Every copy of Rolling Stone you don’t buy, every click-through you don’t give them, makes them less relevant. And profitable. And you may want to ignore Outside, Men’s Journal and US Weekly, too.
It’s easy to get angry at Rolling Stone and other publications that promote civilian disarmament. And so you should. But remember: by thy deeds thy shall be known. What you think is important, but it’s what you do that really matters. Buy a gun, take a newbie to the range and keep your powder dry. Oh and for God’s sake, vote your guns. That’ll learn ’em!
who reads Rolling Stone anymore? I stopped in the 80’s…
As a teenager I figured that RS was drivel.
“who reads Rolling Stone anymore? I stopped in the 80′s…”
I ditched reading it with any regularity in the late 70’s. Every few years I’ll give it a spot audit if I happen to be in a bookstore and to date, see no reason to resume buying it.
Their music reviews used to be pretty good, though haven’t read even that in a number of years.
Think I read it once back in the 60’s. Not sure, can’t remember. Oh yeah, wasn’t worth reading so I used it to roll a cigarette at the Doors concert (Boston Arena). Finally figured out the meaning of the words rolling and stone(d).
Q: What’s the difference between gun owners and Rolling Stone readers?
A: Every year there are more gun owners!
He “Shoots”, he scores!
#4. Stay active on TTAG and on other gun culture media. Our media is showing how bad the old media is. Keep informed. We are increasing, they are decreasing.
Chuck Schumer doesn’t give two squirts of urine about Illion.
I believe their mags still have those subscription cards in them. ” Fill’em out”, send’em in, check bill me.
They’ll send a few copies to anyone/anywhere you write down. It’ll be a couple of $ out of their pockets for every one you send.
I have #3 down cold. I haven’t read Rolling Stone in over 35 years.
Isn’t that the rag that tried to make a hero out of the surviving Boston bomber?
The One retort that will stop RSers in their tracks (but the one the author completely missed)
Rolling Stone “logic”
Gun violence = terrible epidemic
Jihadist Pressure Cooker violence = swoon
So I suppose the guns made them do it. It’s asinine that “shootings” are the only crime where the tool is blamed instead of the person using it.
you say not to click through, but you put that after the first paragraph that has 5 links, and after previous posts that may have already been clicked. I know it is responsible journalism, but i think it’s kind of a catch 22.
As you said, it’s credible journalism. The links are important, but it doesn’t mean you are buying the magazine or browsing their entire website.
yeah, I meant it is a catch 22 for me. I’m trying to validate claims of what was said, but to do that, RS will make a few cents off me browsing the site. Maybe I can start using google cached links.
Aren’t you the one who keeps trying to buy the cheap Viagra from Russia and Thailand?
not sure i follow.
Hey, Robert: “Defang” the links and list them separately as references instead of hyperlinked text. This is what we security nerds do when we must share a malicious (this qualifies) link that we don’t want a recipient to click on. Replace “http” with “hXXp” so its obvious and someone has to put in some effort to go to the site.
list them separately as references instead of hyperlinked text.
They’re called “footnotes.” They’re kinda like commented code. ;^)
TTAG, consider using http://www.donotlink.com/
Link without improving “their” search engine position.
A simple extra #4.
Go after the advertisers – write and complain. Rolling Stone (and all of the other regular media) exist to sell ads; go against the advertisers, lose money.
Better yet, write a very polite email to Rolling Stone itself, stating that you are saddened by the fact that one of your favorite magazines has decided to take such a stand against our civil rights, and state your intent to boycott every advertiser they have. CC all of the advertisers as well.
If the gay marriage movement can do it so can we. There are a lot more of us after all.
First thing I thought of was the bit in Generation Kill when the Rolling Stone writer shows up and everyone is talking smack (“gonna make us into baby killers?”) until he mentions he used to write for Hustler.
Does anyone else remember they used to do recreational drug reviews? I seem to recall reading an MDMA review back in the 90’s that was… interesting. I always see their articles here and think of that; probably not a single one of them is legal to possess.
Rolling Stone has been lame for years. Their demographics and subscriptions are in decline and this article may well piss off some of their readership. The article looks like it was written by a bunch of 19 year old college students for extra credit who could do nothing other then quote and regurgitate bad data. Their article will change nothing.
Either written by interns or The Planet of the Apes was a documentary series.
If a thousand monkeys with a thousand typewriters in a thousand years…
#3: check. I don’t read that piece of trash anyways.
Rolling Stone. Is that what happens when it rains real hard in the mountains and rocks come down at you? Why would there be a magazine about that? And why would it have anti gun articles in it?
Hey, don’t look at me like that. It’s not my fault I own guns, live in the mountains, and all the unpaved roads around me become impassable when it rains and we get a Rolling Stone.
Given the approximately 1600 comments on their “7 steps to beat the NRA” article, which are virtually all against the article, they’re going to take a bit hit for their editorial position.
Practical, common sense advice there. As usual.
I took the one with Boston bomber cover to the range, first and last time I bought RS
I didn’t even honor them by buying one. Since I didn’t buy one, I had nothing to destroy at the range, or shred for that matter.
You can also say: I wasn’t interested in them before, and I’m even less interested now.
“When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away Rolling Stone, NPR, and CNN.”
Corinthians 13:11, New and Improved Testament
“When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away Rolling Stone, NPR, and CNN.”
Shockingly, NPR shows small signs of not being totally anti-2a…
I wouldn’t know, but I’ll take your word for it. What’s shocking is that apparently even in their statist vehemence, NPR cannot even be relied upon to be a negative barometer of the truth. How hard is it to screw up scewing up?
Very very small signs: just enough for their ombudsman to point to as evidence that they are impartial.
Anyone else notice that their state to state comparisons include guns deaths per 100k, instead of gun murders per 100k? This allows them to obscure murder stats by including suicides in a general “gun death” category.
Murders, suicides, accidental shootings and police shootings all lumped together, I’ll bet. I wonder how much Bloomberg paid them?
Jann Wenner’s virulently anti-gun. (Dan Baum mentions in _Gun Guys_ that he had tried to submit a gun-positive piece to RS and his editor told him Wenner would deep-six it so fast Baum wouldn’t know what had hit him.) So I don’t think Bloomie had to pay Wenner a red cent to print this drivel.
“Gun Deaths” and “Gun Violence” are propaganda metrics. I could as easily say “Hospital Deaths”. We can easily eliminate nearly all “Hospital Deaths” by banning hospitals. It is the same semantic trick.
If the good doctor were still around he would be furious at Wenner. As big of a lefty he was, Hunter loved himself some firearms.
Garbage articles like that are only further proof that only “important” victims to these people are white suburban youth. Has anyone taken shannon to task on why she only got involved after Newtown? Plenty of African American kids got killed by gang violence in all of 2012 before Newtown happened. Why did she wait until 20 white kids in suburban Conneticut got shot up? School shootings since mid 1900’s account for some statistically insignificant portion of firearms deaths, so much so that they could be rounded to 0 without affecting the final tally.
This was a theme that came up more than once in this article… truly sad. because what they are basically saying is, the tragic violence and killing happening in Chicago (and other major cities) day after day is acceptable as long as we can keep the privileged kids from getting killed in school.
There are some simple possible reasons for this discrepancy.
(1) They don’t care about any children and are only using the idea of child deaths to tweak the emotions of listeners/readers in order to achieve their socio-political goals (disarmament).
(2) They assume that the privileged white kid deaths are the only ones that will resonate with their readers/listeners. That is, they assume America is populated by people with such extreme racially based hatred that they, the readers/listeners, won’t care about minority deaths, so why bring them up?
It is instructive to remember that they don’t care about the guns as tools of violence; they care about control. They care about gaining and keeping control of others and will lie, manipulate and emote any way they can to achieve that control.
Typo in the second paragraph under “Take a newbie shooting”:
“May I should have one”
Why would I bother with Rolling Stone? If that tripe requires a response, I’ll let my 10 year old son handle it. They’re well within his ability to address. I’ll save my argumentation skills for efforts where they may make a difference.
People actually pay for RS?? Eh I can’t get too high on the hog over it I used to buy Maxim then they started dumbing down even more & throwin anti gun bs out there so I stopped
I’m still wondering how something that’s decreasing can be classified as an “epidemic”.
The same way Time can claim that Chick-Fil-A is still suffering today after they made public their view on gay marriage a couple years back. That is: ignore the facts.
Truth is, even the New York Times has stated that Chick-Fil-A has outsold KFC in sales, with about half the stores of KFC.
3 works for me. On my own site, I had a surge in anti-gun postings a few weeks ago, even by well-meaning people who honestly thing “minor” restrictions on top of those we already have will solve the problems. While the intent of those statements might be good, we know “minor” restrictions just make the next stage of restrictive laws that much easier. Mag cap ban? Then the next round is no detachable magazines, etc.
So, rather than fight a meaningless fight – the antis on my site don’t vote and they don’t care enough to donate money to the Moms, I just let them post away and ignore it.
Rolling Stone journalism at its yellow-est! I used their “gun violence story” submission page here (lower right on page):
To tell them that there’s no such thing as “gun violence” & that ALL of us worldwide have been affected POSITIVELY by the use of guns in WWII. Go blow up their submission system with Defensive Guns uses.
guns = bad
Jahar Tsarnaev = super model
RS = Satan’s toilet paper
Rolling Stone has ALWAYS sucked. They barely know music, never mind guns.
They know about music?
Well, they probably know that music contains notes. Other then that….
I’ve never personally seen any issue of Rolling Stone that is not 90%+ advertisements. My parents stopped their subscriptions in the 80s, and I never saw any reason to buy it myself.
The dead-tree media is dying a slow, agonizing death. Yes, their influence is waning, but it will still be a good long time before they (finally and thankfully) kick the bucket, go out of business, and close their doors.
Townhall.com posted some very funny Twitter responses to Rolling Stone’s latest attack.
Heh, Mockery should be number 4 on Robert’s list. Everyone on the web is making fun of that lame-o Most Dangerous Guns slide show.
Oh dear. I think the 5 Most Dangerous Vowels was my favorite. 😀
Hmmm…Well sure there’s the obvious… but what about that crafty “Y” ?
Right. I like your thinking. Crafty “Y” is a sneaky bastard. Can’t trust a flip-flopper. He may need swift-boated.
Why ask Y?
I once received free issues with some concert tickets. Straight into the trash bin.
I will offer one slight correction for RF: The article on the A Girl and A Gun conference wasn’t bad, although it could have been better. So between it and the Confessions of a Liberal Gun Lover, that makes two not-bad articles. (Out of, what, 8?)
I don’t think we should ignore them. I think we need to bombard them with facts and intelligent rebuttals on the message boards attached to their online articles as well as to the editors. What we don’t need to do is make threats or belittle which almost always happens.
I think it’s best to ask them where their slave collar is, then tell them they should have their masters beat them for being such morons.
Rolling Stone? – No. Rolling Rock? – Much mo betta!
Never have read Rolling Stone, guess it’s not time to start. Thanks for the warning. Wonderful series of comments. Who is going to collect these and send them to “Rolling Joints” (loved that shot) so they can see that their heads are so far up each other’s arses that they need plexiglas belly buttons?
Did anyone actually read the ‘5 Most Dangerous Guns’ article? It’s pretty mockable, I was thinking it was going to be actual models or something, but according to RS, the 5 most dangerous guns are:
Yes, they broke them out that way. Read the description of pistols, I couldn’t make the author sound more ignorant if I tried.
People still read Rolling Stoned? Must be a bunch of old hippies who now listen to Lawrence Welk and take Geritol.
I got a free subscription to RS for taking a stupid survey, which has only recently lapsed, but I actually enjoyed getting the magazine. I could read up on the music my daughter likes, and they have some excellent investigative reporting, especially by Matt Taibbi, whose reporting on Wall Street malfeasance is second to none.
RS has a long editorial anti-gun history, but they should get some credit for presenting opposing views. The Confessions of a Liberal Gun Lover was decent, and supports my suspicion that a lot of us lefty gun people are actually far to the left of the Democratic Party.
The Five Most Deadly Guns bit was, on the other hand, beneath contempt. I’m not one to get my panties in a twist every time someone says “clip” instead of “magazine,” but I think I might actually be motivated to write them about that piece of uninformed drivel. Also, how about some stories of gunshot survivors who got religion and chose to arm themselves? Hopefully some such people will write in.
So yes, the editors of Rolling Stone hate guns. On the other hand, RS has the ear of a lot of young men in their 20s and 30s, who are likely open to a pro-gun message. If you find that you agree with all the media you’re consuming you may want to broaden your horizons a bit. I’d encourage people to write RS with well-reasoned arguments. Hint, don’t say “libtard.”
” The Confessions of a Liberal Gun Lover was decent, and supports my suspicion that a lot of us lefty gun people are actually far to the left of the Democratic Party.”
The unfortunate problem is that when you vote left, you’re blissfully blind to fact that that your vote is vehemently against the very 2A rights you claim to profess.
The Left wants the 2A *gone*, with prejudice.
I guess I’ve missed something in the 30 years since I’ve read a Rolling Stone magazine, but I thought it was a music industry rag?
Well, ‘ya know, dope heads don’t have any good reason to own guns, so they think nobody else does either. 😀
Boycott the Rolling Stone. There is nothing ineresting to read. No one buys 5 copies for their Mother anymore because the cover of the Rolling Stone is drivel.
I’m buying another gun. Maybe a SIG 938.
Thank you TTAG for enduring all of that garbage in the name of keeping us informed!
Hunter S. Thompson would slap Jann Wenner if he were still alive.
I know about Rolling Stones’ anti-gun stance. Back in the 1990s a local newspaper had an excert from a RS article showing “the power of a .308 semi-automatic rifle”. The article had a picture of a body in a morgue with a SINGLE entry wound at the front, and a fairly nasty exit wound at the back.
Some non-gun people asked me to explain or justify this. I told the the article was meaningless because several facts were not mentioned. The distance of the shot and specifically what type of bullet was used. I had to explain how a semi-automatic firearm worked and that fact was irrelevant because there was only one shot on the body. I then told them that a single-shot or bolt-action rifle would be more powerful because semi-automatic rifles bleed some gas from firing to work the mechanism, but in reality the performance difference was negligible.
It was a good lesson in the objectivity of journalism. I still have a copy of the article in my archives.
So far, all the dead tree rags are all anti gun. Even the gun ones. *Dick Metcalf* I will not have any dead tree in my house. Remove their funding. Don’t buy them.
Isn’t this the same august and respected publication that said Led Zeppelin wasn’t any good and was going nowhere? Yeah, I’ll pass. Stick to reviewing autotuned mass produced drivel that masqurades as music.
When I got to my first duty station, my barracks roommate had a subscription to RS, and after reading an issue, I questioned his sanity for it. He (sheepishly) explained that it came free when he got something else. I responded that I suppose it can double as toilet paper if we ran out, but I doubt the sewage system could handle the extra crap.