Yeah. Okay. Thanks a bunch CMD.

Someone notify the Webster’s people that they need to change some definitions.

Lisa Graves, Executive Director
Email: Lisa (AT) PRWatch.org

Wendell Potter, Senior Fellow on Health Care
email: Editor (AT) PRWatch.org

John Stauber, founder of Center for Media and Democracy and its news magazine PR Watch
email: stauber AT tds.net

About CMD
The Center for Media and Democracy was founded by John Stauber in 1993 as an independent, non-profit, non-partisan, public interest organization. CMD’s mission is to promote transparency and an informed debate by exposing corporate spin and government propaganda and by engaging the public in collaborative, fair and accurate reporting.

Privacy Policy
The Center for Media & Democracy (CMD) believes strongly in the internet as a vital tool for education, advocacy and information exchange.

I too typed a comment and submitted it (3 hours ago) , not published yet.

The point is, the product the company manufactures is not responsible for a single death (man or women) in this or any other country. The person responsible for the deaths when a firearm is used as a tool is the person pulling the trigger. This is the same as choosing to smoke. The person responsible for the repercussions of smoking is the person who, knowing the possible consequences, lights up. Smith and Wesson is a great company that makes a great product, that is used for good every day. Many women (and men) have used their products to fend off attackers, and to preserve their life and the lives of their loved ones. Many law enforcement officers use their products to preserve the peace and protect the good people of this country. It is strange, you only see the product being used to hurt women, but where are your percentages describing the number of women who are going out and purchasing (and using when necessary) their product to defend their right to life and liberty? I say, by giving women the ability (with proper training) to defend themselves from any attacker, and to choose not to be a victim, the products Smith and Wesson provides actually empowers women. I (might) feel bad for anybody who decides to accost Julie in a dark ally (or anywhere else). I commend S&W and Julie for donating their hard earned money to a cause as worthy as the fight against breast cancer. So should you.

Your logic is unsound and your facts wrong
Making a classic false comparison between cigarettes (an inherently unhealthy and dangerous product where there is no possible way that it might be used safely) and firearms (a generally health neutral product which only causes injury when it is misused in a criminal manner or operated in a negligent fashion) is classic straw man argument technique and a common error in logic. There is no possible way to safely use tobacco. Firearms are used safely literally millions of times per day in this country. Interesting that one would make a moral judgment and look down on a company trying to help and do the right thing from atop a mountain of arrogance and self-righteousness. Merely because one does not personally “like” firearms or that firearms are sometimes misused by criminals doesn’t devalue the contribution of one who likes them and uses them properly. They are completely unrelated. The hubris and condescention of such an attitude is astounding and its apparent that one would rather allow cancer run rampant than take a heartfelt contribution from someone who engages in an activity (which is legal, as well as morally and ethically neutral) that some disapprove of. I suggest that someone with this attitude expand their horizons a little and become more inclusive. Literally millions of Americans, all law abiding, honest and hardworking use firearms. Is it really in the interests of those fighting cancer to eschew their contributions to the fight?

In addition, I question the factual basis of the point concerning 29% of violent deaths of women being attributable to firearms. Where did this figure come from and how was it arrived at? Even if for the purposes of argument you accept the figure as accurate, the logic in using it is unsound. It fails to distinguish between the criminal and patently illegal use of an otherwise legal product and the non-criminal use of the same product, while making a invalid comparison between the non-criminal and safe use of one product, (firearms), and the use of another (tobacco) which is inherently unsafe and unhealthy and can in no way be made safe. No firearm was ever responsible for the violent death of a single woman, rather it was the person operating it in an unlawful manner.

Julie (Goloski) Golub is more than a mere “sharpshooter” and the director of marketing for a firearms company. She is a well known competitive shooter, arguably the best female pistol shooter in America, perhaps the world, one of a small group of “Annie Oakleys” of the day. A military veteran she has never operated a firearm in such a manner. Her company, Smith and Wesson, is one of the oldest firearms manufacturing companies in America, founded in 1852. Neither Julie nor Smith and Wesson endorse anything but the lawful, safe and responsible use of firearms. Merely because some individuals criminally misuse an otherwise safe and lawful product does not make an illogical comparison any more logical or factually sound.

A correct analogy to the position taken by a previous commentator would be to turn down donations to the fight against cancer by automobile manufacturers merely because one of the leading causes of death in America are automobile crashes due to DUI as well as negligent operation of vehicles. I would bet next month’s mortgage payment that the number of women killed either by criminal misuse of vehicles, such as DUI, as well as negligent operation of vehicles, far outnumber those killed violently with firearms, yet I don’t see anyone advocating against the acceptance of donations in the fight against cancer by Ford, Chrysler or General Motors because they get some kind of good PR publicity. That would be generally regarded as ridiculous. Similarly, turning one’s nose up against a donation from a person (and her employer) who has long been involved in the fight against cancer (I recall reading that Julie donated much of her long hair several years back to “Locks for Love”) merely because one doesn’t happen to “like” their profession or industry is an example of cutting one’s nose off to spite their face, political correctness run amuck and contrary to common sense, and equally absurd.