Over the last six years that segment of the population that owns firearms has seen our right to own a firearm under systematic attack. During this same time we've also had our moments with the most recent being the power shift in Washington. Unfortunately the wins we've seen are not a sign of clear sailing ahead. We remain under the constant threat of further marginalization by those that seek to limit our rights, and those in the media willing to accept as truths the litany of misinformation and out-of-context factoids fed to them. I don't entirely blame the media for willingly reciting the so-called facts they've been presented by anti-gun groups. Aggressive communication, especially during times of tragedy, has been the most powerful tool of the anti-gun advocate. And in the 24-hour news business where reporters need to fill air time the half-truths and stilted facts find their way into the national narrative. Conversely, we hunker down in silence hoping to wait out the public relations onslaught in our own little war of attrition. Where the anti-gun community embraces the political communication axiom that 'speed kills,' we seem to rely on 'time heals all wounds.' On Monday the Hartford Courant reported that families of the children killed at Sandy Hook filed wrongful death claims and have met with lawyers about the possibility of going after firearm manufacturer Bushmaster. This will usher in another round of heart-rending calls to do something, anything, even if it saves but one child. There is no arguing the enormity of the tragedy that has befallen these families and their grief can not be measured. But this grief is not justification for punishing a company that did not act improperly. Nor is it justification for impeding on the freedoms of the law abiding gun owner. The tragedy that hit the Sandy Hook community is unique in its breadth. The sheer number of children murdered is horrible. What is hard for the firearms community to accept is that the murders committed by a mentally deranged individual warrants the wholesale revocation of rights. It is argued that the laws passed in the wake of Sandy Hook are simply restrictions to rights and not the revocation of those rights. However, we do not see these same restrictive efforts in the wake of some 33,000+ traffic accidents or the 10,000+ deaths caused by drunk drivers. There are laws about the misuse of cars and alcohol - just as there are laws about the misuse of firearms - but no one is calling for the same kind of limitations and restrictions as in the case of firearms. To do so would elicit similar cries of an infringement of rights and unwarranted government control over our lives. The problem that exists with firearms that doesn't exist with cars or alcohol, is that the people calling for restrictions don't care about firearms. They do drive, and consume alcohol, enjoying those products even while the threat exists of their misuse. With firearms there is no familiarity and the threat of misuse alone warrants their calls for a ban. Prohibiting the sale of a firearm doesn't matter because those calling for it were never going to buy one, and those that are buying firearms represent the danger and therefore worthy of the ridicule, shame and, yes, even bigotry sent their way. We are the only group where the illegal actions of a few are used as the context through which to view the majority. Imagine if instead of being law abiding gun owners we were all African-American, or Muslim. Taking the criminal actions of a few to represent the greater community would be racist. It would be racism pure and simple. Yet with gun owners, it is perfectly fine, acceptable and in vogue. For the media, firearms are the basis of nightly stories about crime and murder and to them these stories define all firearms. The people that own firearms, while not criminals themselves, exist on the periphery of that criminal element, making every gun owner a potential threat for another tragedy. "What do you say to those that feel firearms are dangerous? Shouldn't be so easily available? Pose a public health threat?" These are the kinds of questions always asked about firearms but never posed in the wake of traffic accident. And it certainly isn't a question asked about the African-American or Muslim community after a crime crime or terrorist act is committed by a member of their communities. Following a tragedy gun owners are made to defend themselves in a way that would never be expected of the African-American or Muslim communities after a crime crime or terrorist act is committed by a member of their community. However, every legal gun owner somehow has to speak to and comment on the illegal actions of others. You own a gun, and the criminal owned a gun, so therefore you're pretty much the same kind of people seems to be the prevailing point of view. And it is a point of view that will not change anytime soon if we continue to allow others to define us. As long as we give those opposed to firearms ownership and the second amendment the platform to pair the legal gun owner with the criminal, our sport, our products and our rights will be under ongoing attack until such time as we lose those rights or we change the conversation. It's time we start changing the conversation. - Paul Erhardt, Editor, the Outdoor Wire Digital Network Got shooting sports news? Send us an email at info@shootingwire.com.