General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Bang. One thousand one. Bang. [View all]Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)If those two firearms you posted are functionally identical, then why the different models?
Marketing. They are designed to appeal to different customers. One of those firearms looks like something you'd see in action in Afghanistan; the other looks like it might be Uncle Bill's lucky .22 he takes out every season opening. With a magazine, 'cause hey, sometimes it's a big deer, I guess. Anyway.
One is an appeal to fantasy and machismo. The person who sees this and goes "OOOOH, WANT!"wants the image of being a "warrior," or a "brave defender" or some other role that fills his sense of militant nobility. He puts his hand on this weapon and feels "I am one of the troops."
The other is more utilitarian, speaking to someone who wants a gun for what a gun does, probably more interested in the technical aspects than the image it projects. Sport shooting, hunting, a chewtoy for a very large dog or small bear, whatever.
I'm not arguing that aesthetics are a cause of shootings, any more than i would argue that Iron Maiden albums lead to people sacrificing chickens to Baphomet. However, I can't shake the notion that someone who's already off-kilter and prone to see violence as a good idea would be more likely to want to buy a weapon that lives up to his fantasy, rather than one that looks like the gun version of a Soviet apartment block.