GunLoons and their Deceits
Jay F in comments:
the oft-heard deceits of anti-gunowner advocates — such as the ourrageous deception of the “fingerprint-resistant” gun.
It’s a deception, it’s outrageous, it’s deceitful. It’s an ad from IntraTec:
Not the best image reproduction but you can make out the text: “excellent resistance to fingerprints”
Now, let’s see–who might be glad to have “excellent resistance to fingerprints” for their handguns?
Taken out of context, as all anti-gunowner advocates always do in this case to further their deception.
Let’s look at the rest, in the picture you provided:
“…provides excellent resistance to fingerprints, sweat rust, petroleum distillates of all types, gun solvents, gun cleaners, and all powder residues.”
Tell us, oh great gun expert: What’s all that other stuff about? Is there some connection with fingerprints?
And:
Why do anti-gunowner advocates who raise the issue never reprint the actual ad (with the context)in their literature?
Why has no city or state or country banned fingerprint-resistant guns?
Comment by JayF — December 16, 2007 @ 8:30 pm
AAARGH!
Matt, DON’T give him the answers — let him make a fool of himself first.
Comment by JayF — December 16, 2007 @ 8:43 pm
Sorry, concurrent posts. Yours wasn’t there when I started typing.
Comment by Matt — December 16, 2007 @ 8:52 pm
Jay F: Here’s your problem: it would be very easy for IntraTec to say their finish resists or prevents corrosion. Instead, they specifically call out ‘fingerprint resistance.’
Comment by Administrator — December 16, 2007 @ 9:03 pm
NO — they specifically mention “resistance to fingerprints, sweat rust, petroleum distillates of all types, gun solvents, gun cleaners, and all powder residues” — ALL of which cause corrosion.
Oh great gun expert — do you not know this, as most gunowners do?
Printing an actual reproduction of an ad for “resistance to fingerprints” should be a GREAT propaganda coup — so WHY do anti-gunowner advocates who raise the issue never reprint the actual ad (with the context) in their literature?
And WHY has no city or state or country banned fingerprint-resistant guns?
You have MANY problems.
Comment by JayF — December 16, 2007 @ 10:55 pm
And even though they’re “fingerprint resistant”, they will hold fingerprints just fine you know.
Comment by Michael Hawkins — December 17, 2007 @ 6:06 am
Again, Jay F., the Tec-9 is a cheaply manufactured and designed firearm, nobody seriously denies that. Look at the ad, it features some babe in a bikini working out. What is the message there? If you’re buying a Tec-9, corrosion is probably the least of your worries; it’s far more likely a component will fail.
…………..
This is the point you seem eager to miss. The fact is IntraTec is marketing this weapon based on two factors: its resistance to fingerprints and its sex appeal.
……………..
The fact is, Jay F, you lied.
Comment by Administrator — December 17, 2007 @ 7:04 am
Indeed, what IS in a name?
Comment by Rumplestiltskin — December 17, 2007 @ 9:24 am
Of course the company has been out of business for 6 years, so it’s a “real” example of how the firearms industry operates
Comment by JDFAR — December 17, 2007 @ 9:56 am
Spam from RossContracting
Comment by Rumplestiltskin — December 17, 2007 @ 10:00 am
Sex appeal? DUH! Do other products do that? Sure — but irrelevant to our discussion.
Intratec was marketing its “Tec-Kote finish (which costs extra) by pointing out its resistance to a LIST of factors that can cause corrosion. Among them are fingerprints — do you not know this, oh great gun expert, as most gunowners do?
I “lied”? NO — I claimed that the issue of “fingerprint-resistant” guns was a deception — and those who see and read the actual ad (thank you) and who know something about guns realize that what anti-gunowner advocates WANT you to think here just isn’t so.
What YOU keep missing:
Printing an actual reproduction of an ad for “resistance to fingerprints” should be a GREAT propaganda coup — so WHY do anti-gunowner advocates who raise the issue never reprint the actual ad (with the revealing context) in their literature for lobbying and fund-raising?
AND anti-gunowner advocates are all about laws — they want to ban THIS and ban THAT. So WHY has no country (Britain? Australia?) state (MA? NJ?) or city (Chigago? DC?) banned
fingerprint-resistant guns?
WHY?
Comment by JayF — December 17, 2007 @ 10:57 am
This issue spun off from the resident blogger’s posting of a link to Richard Feldman, author of the recent NRA-bashing book “Ricochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist.”
In the book, Feldman tells how as the chief gun industry lobbyist he defied and angered the NRA by meeting and negotiating with a group of anti-gunowner officials led by Philly mayor (now PA governor) Ed Rendell. One of Rendell’s complaints was the “fingerprint-resistant gun.” Feldman responded by showing Rendell the ACTUAL AD (with the revealing context). Rendell, apparently being smarter than another anti-gunowner advocate we know, agreed that it did not mean what he had thought it did, and moved on to the next issue.
Comment by JayF — December 17, 2007 @ 11:09 am
Yes, Jay F, you lied. You claimed the deception is on the part of anti-gun advocates. To the contrary, it is on your side.
…..
The fact is that residues and acids from fingerprints acusing oxidation on firearms is so minimal as to be nonexistent. I daresay an untreated weapon could be handled many centuries without appreciable oxidation. Fingerprint oxidation really only comes into play whe you speak of electronic components or very, very delicate machinery components. The purpose of fingerprint resistant coatings is actually two-fold: cosmetic (used on plumbing fixtures, etc) and to resist fingerprints.
………..
As I’ve noted, the Tec-9 has received universally poor reviews for its design and workmanship. Putting a fingerprint resistant coating for purely cosmetic reasons is like spraying dung with cologne; it really isn’t going to smell better.
………
Now, given the fact a Tec-9 was the weapon of choice for criminals at one point–would not the fingerprint resistance be a selling point? Like the babe?
Comment by Administrator — December 17, 2007 @ 12:35 pm
Nobody ever claimed that some people might misinterpret the ad thinking the finish wouldn’t hold prints, but it certainly does!
As a matter of fact, since the base upon which the print is placed is resistant to corrosion, a print would be viable longer than one on a raw steel frame.
Comment by Michael Hawkins — December 17, 2007 @ 12:41 pm
MH; we all get your tired point that fingerprint resistant doesn’t mean fingerprint proof.
Comment by Administrator — December 17, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
Spam from RossContracting
Comment by Matt Holcomb — December 17, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
Spam from RossContracting
Comment by Matt is still back — December 17, 2007 @ 2:26 pm
Your dismissal of fingerprints as detrimental to standard blue gun finishes is bunk. I now see that your “expertise” on firearms exists only in your imagination, and consists of your making stuff up.
Googling the subject turns up a slew of products sold to protect against the corrosive effect of fingerprints.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=gun+fingerprints+rust
BTW, you ARE right about the quality of the Tec pistol. That you seem to be unaware that protective finishes have long been a option for cheap guns further displays your ignorance.
And “babes” mainly appeal to criminals, huh? Wow — every car show I have been to was full of car companies appealing to criminals.
And the answers to the questions about the out of context quoting and the lack of bans and the Feldman/Rendell meeting — exposes just WHO has been deceiving.
Comment by JayF — December 17, 2007 @ 2:29 pm
JF: Your link points out fingerprints and rust are treated as separate items.
……….
Again, the oxidation that may be caused by fingerprints is minimal–it is primarily cosmetic. As I noted before, fingerprint-related corrosion is only a problem in electronic components and very delicate machinery components.
Comment by Administrator — December 17, 2007 @ 2:43 pm
My link shows LOTS of products marketed to protect against the corrosive effects of figerprints — effects which YOU try to dismiss.
Comment by JayF — December 17, 2007 @ 2:47 pm
ON NO!
HERE is a company that makes a finish to give ANY gun “excellent resistance to fingerprints, perspiration, petroleum distillates of all types, gun solvents, gun cleaners and all powder residue.”
http://www.robarguns.com/additional_finishes.htm
Why oh why won’t any place (MA? NJ? Chicago? DC?) ban such guns?
Why oh why won’t anti-gunowner legislators try to pass such bans?
Why oh why won’t gun control groups lobby legislators for such bans?
Comment by JayF — December 17, 2007 @ 2:54 pm
JF: To be certain, there are plenty of products available to make fingerprint corrosion less likely. The problem is that fingerprint corrosion is pretty far down the list in terms of risk of corrosion. For example, a piece of metal is far likely to corrode due to exposure to changing temps or salt air or even exposure to dissimilar metals.
Comment by Administrator — December 17, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
And the Intratec ad says that their finish (like the other one I just posted a link to) protects against many sources of corrosion including fingerprints.
Gun control advocates and legislators friendly to their cause know the truth, which is why they don’t try to ban fingerprint-resistant guns or finishes. But their deception to fool the public is just so usefull that they keep on spreading their deceit.
Comment by JayF — December 17, 2007 @ 3:14 pm
JF: Again, you miss the point–why is IntraTec marketing their weapons as “fingerprint resistant?”
Comment by Administrator — December 17, 2007 @ 5:38 pm
I have zeroed in on the EXACT point: Intratec offered a typically finished blued steel gun, which like most guns so finished is suceptible to corrosion if not well cared for. They also (for an additional charge)offered an optional stainless-look finish (Tec-Kote) which was resistant to many factors that can cause corrosion — and they listed some of those factors, one of which was fingerprints.
All of this is well-illustrated by the many products for sale (as per my link) that protect against the corrosive effects of fingerprints on guns which do NOT have an optional and more expensive corrosion resistant finish.
So asked and answered — again.
I will be AWKB from Tue on to the end of the week, but I will be back — this has been fun.
Comment by JayF — December 17, 2007 @ 5:55 pm
JF: But if people who buy guns, like a Tec-9, are relatively ignorant of guns–what do you suppose they think “fingerprint resistant” means?
Comment by Administrator — December 17, 2007 @ 7:49 pm
Intratec, like most gun makers, advertises with the assumption of some basic knowledge.
How else to explain the ad’s “excellent resistance to…perspiration, petroleum distillates of all types, gun solvents, gun cleaners and all powder residue” as well as fingerprints. Most gunowners know about the detrimental effects of fingerprints (and those other things) on firearms.
The only ones we know who ever got it wrong are anti-gunowner advocates — who were LOOKING for something to use against Intratec, and found nothing else that was not equally bogus.
“Babes” in an ad meant an appeal to criminals — LOL
Comment by JayF — December 17, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
JF: Marketing types know what sells; IntraTec sells a cheaply made gun favored by crooks. Thus, the marketing scheme: fingerprint resistant and sex appeal.
…….
Now, a GunLoon who supposedly knows something about guns isn’t going to be swayed by such an ad–but criminals are.
Comment by Administrator — December 17, 2007 @ 9:24 pm
Yup, ordinary gunowners are NEVER swayed by sex appeal — just like car buyers pay no heed to babes at car shows.
What terrible “marketing types” must have been employed by Intratec — confusing their appeal with all that stuff about “excellent resistance to… perspiration, petroleum distillates of all types, gun solvents, gun cleaners and all powder residue.”
What do “crooks” care about THAT?
And what AMAZING COINCIDENCES that so many other other makers of gun finishes and gun care products also advertise products that protect against the corrosive effects of fingerprints and the same other factors mentioned by Intratec.
Comment by JayF — December 17, 2007 @ 10:49 pm
Yeah, ordinary gunowners are NEVER swayed by sex appeal — just like car buyers pay no heed to babes at car shows.
What terrible “marketing types” must have been employed by Intratec — confusing their appeal with all that stuff about “excellent resistance to… perspiration, petroleum distillates of all types, gun solvents, gun cleaners and all powder residue.”
What do “crooks” care about THAT?
And what AMAZING COINCIDENCES that so many other other makers of gun finishes and gun care products also advertise products that protect against the corrosive effects of fingerprints and the same other factors mentioned by Intratec.
Comment by JayF — December 17, 2007 @ 11:16 pm
The Company does not sell anything as they have been out of business since 2001
Comment by JDFAR — December 18, 2007 @ 5:51 am