Memes are a big part of internet culture. They didn’t originate there–I remember when people would photocopy the funny images we now think of as memes and put them on their office or cubical wall, for example–but they’re a big part of it.
They exist for pretty much everything. Even the most obscure hobbies or interests have memes that are shared among those who share that interest.
And numerous companies will make memes as part of their marketing efforts.
It seems, though, that when gun companies do it, it’s terrible and they should be stopped.
The meme ecosystem, a staple of internet culture, is known for its humor, sarcasm, and, sometimes, controversial takes. But who would’ve imagined that this realm of digital satire would intertwine with legal dramas and the gun industry? The gun banners, that’s who.
It’s astounding to think that in a nation where the right to bear arms is enshrined in the Constitution, we now see lawsuits targeting gun manufacturers for their advertising campaigns and harmless funny jokes.
Let’s get one thing clear: Guns don’t cause shootings. People do.
Highlighting the lengths some will go, Karen Lowy, who survived the horrifying 2022 D.C. sniper incident and is now armed with attorneys likely funded by anti-gun-orgs, and decided to drag various firearm makers into the legal arena. Dubbed “Lowy v Daniel Defense,” her court claim is rather audacious: She insists that the promotional methods of gun companies, including funny memes, somehow “celebrate violence,” leading to her distress and agony.
And there you have it, fellow frogs: memes are bad.
The idea that memes or marketing hashtags are the root cause feels like a stretch. Marketing campaigns do not have the power to brainwash individuals into becoming killers. That work is best left to the CIA and a dash of MKUltra.
First, memes from gun companies don’t “celebrate violence.” Yet, even if they did, companies have the right to free speech, the same as individuals do. If they want to celebrate violence, they’re entitled to do so. If Karen Lowy–and I couldn’t have picked a more accurate first name for someone like this–doesn’t like it, she can get over it.
Now, I get that she’s apparently a shooting survivor. I get that her experiences may make her more sensitive to some things than the rest of us.
I simply don’t care.
Oh, I’m terribly sorry for what she went through and I’m sympathetic to the fact that it left emotional and psychological scars, but I’m just unable to care enough that I think the entire rest of the world has to adjust to her trauma.
See, the companies like Daniel Defense–and there are plenty of others listed as well–don’t force those memes into Lowy’s feed. They make them and post them on their own social media. They’re not seeking Lowy out to antagonize her or anything of the sort. Pretty much all of their marketing is like that.
This means other people are putting it in front of Lowy for some reason or that she’s seeking it out.
I’m sorry, but that’s not on Daniel Defense or any other gun company.
The problem, though, is that I don’t think it’s about Lowy feeling anguish and distress over things like memes. I think this is nothing more than an excuse to try and find a way to hurt these gun companies.
Anti-gunners like Lowy simply don’t want these companies to advertise at all. They want to basically ban them from marketing at all. We’ve seen some idiotic complaints of late, including the claim that because young people use social media, any marketing on there is directed toward them. This is more of that, lawfare designed to silence gun companies.
It’s just dumber than most.