One burr that gets under my saddle is people taking pictures of themselves holding guns.
two three times when it’s ok to take a picture of someone holding a gun.
– When you are posing with your trophy/trophies from a successful hunt (Mosquitos do NOT count)
– When you are taking a group photo of your military or law enforcement combat team.
– During a course of fire at firearms competition.
I have exactly one picture of me holding a camera, despite being around some really neat cameras for fifteen years (if you ever get a chance to pick up a Sinar P2, I heartily recommend them). To a professional photographer, a camera is a tool, as worthy of special recognition as a belt sander or joiner is to a carpenter. Sure, there’s some really nice cameras out there and yes, we get excited about the latest and great thing to come down the pike, but by and large, the nice qualities a camera might have is a result of their functionality and not from their innate beauty (Although the Contax G1 is just *gorgeous* and really useful. I digress.).
This is also my attitude with my guns. I have some guns that are really pretty to look at and some that are not, but I judge each gun I own (with one exception) according to it’s ability to do the task that I require of it, from busting clays to plinking to IPSC to 300 yard shots. The exception to the rule is the M1903 that’s in the photo I linked above: It’s not capable of being shot as the receivers from very early Springfields weren’t heat-treated properly, so it’s job is to be a family heirloom.
And no, I’m not a fan of “barbecue guns“, and I’m not a fan of tactical-for-tactical’s sake either: If a rail helps, use it, if it doesn’t, leave it off. I just don’t understand how we in the gun community (rightfully) criticize the anti-gunners for turning guns into killing machines possessed of their own will and then turn around and elevate what was and is a tool, a (very) refined blunt instrument into an object d’art and statement of our self-esteem.