Today is going to be a bit of a departure from our normal Insider column. Rather than the typical story full of mendacities, half-truths, one-quarter-truths and outright lies, I’m going to break the proceedings into segments. Therefore, both of my regular readers get a bonus — instead of hating the story, this month you can hate three of them!
What’s In A Word?
Here’s a recent letter from a reader:
I am a volunteer hunter education instructor and dislike the term “weapons” in class. I cringe when the Conservation Officers refer to the firearms as “weapons.”
On several occasions I have told the students that no weapons will be used today. Webster’s dictionary defines a weapon as something used to attack or assault someone, we will be doing neither, so only firearms will be used in class today. The term weapon tends to put a negative light on the firearms safety course. —Adam Mackow
First off, I’ve answered a few of these letters in earlier Crossfire sections and the gist of it is “I agree — mostly.” There seems to be a growing sentiment among pro-2A folks that the very word “weapon” itself will accelerate anti-gun legislation, turn public opinion against guns, cause tooth decay and possibly attract moles to your yard.
However, I disagree. But first, a bit of explanation and brief defense of GUNS.
In my files I found approximately 60 uses of the word “weapon” on the pages of GUNS in 2025 so far. Many of these uses were in a context which I don’t think causes anyone heartburn: “Atomic weapons,” military “automatic weapons,” etc. Several were also in Dave Workman’s 2A Column in the context of quoting law or paraphrasing anti-gunners. Using my best guestimate, I’d say instances where the word is being used as synonym for “gun” or its variants is approximately 30 times.
The most recent edition which has been completely edited (August 2025) contained 27,368 words total. If you multiply this by the eight completed issues, my search encompassed roughly 225,000 total words. If 30 of those were used “incorrectly” (in the sense of the letter above), this makes the rate of usage for the word “weapon” approximately 0.013%
My overall point is this — we don’t use the term “weapon” all that often.
Sometimes the author used the word and I simply overlooked it during editing. Other times, I made a reasoned choice to leave the word as-is or even intentionally substituted it in place of another word. In these instances, it’s either to make the sentence more accurate or flow better.
This might be because the author used the word “handgun” or “firearm” four times in the same sentence. In case you weren’t aware, using the same word multiple times in close proximity is considered bad form.
This explains why you occasionally see the word “weapon” in a story in GUNS. However, let’s go to the other side of this argument: It’s just a word.
In principle, I agree it’s better to use a different descriptor when discussing firearms, but let’s not take it to extremis. If we allow anti-gunners to co-opt certain words and make them off-limits, they’re slowing chipping away at our ability to even discuss our sport and the Second Amendment.
They’ve already done it with “Gun Safety” — which is a masterful piece of disinformation and gaslighting by the anti-gun lobby — but they shouldn’t be allowed to dictate which words we can use in describing firearms.
Think about this: Anti-gunners get “triggered” by “weapons,” but they also don’t like the words “rifle,” “firearm,” “handgun” or any of the other descriptor we choose, so let’s not worry about how certain terms are perceived by our foes.
In the end, I generally agree and will often remove this word when I see it, but let’s not get too P.C. in our speech. Otherwise, we’re no better than those fuzzy-brained lefties in this regard.
Be Careful What You Wish For
I recently had an interesting business discussion with someone who is associated with the suppressor — aka “silencer,” aka “can,” aka “snuffer,” aka whatever — industry. First off, he agreed “can” is an acceptable informal substitute for “suppressor.”
I mention this after a recent letter took me to task for using “can” during a podcast. Thus, I offer this voucher as proof I’m not mangling our language any worse than your average rapper.
The most interesting part of our discussion was his take on the Hearing Protection Act. It recently passed the U.S. House and then attached itself leechlike onto President Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” on government funding. At press time, the whole matter is still being politically sliced and diced, and it’s anybody’s guess if the bill itself will pass with or without the Hearing Protection Act as part of it.
Overall, my friend loves the idea of suppressors being removed from the National Firearms Act and the onerous $200 tax stamp removed, but he cautioned: Be careful what you wish for. I asked for an explanation.
“I think it will destroy the U.S. suppressor industry,” he said bluntly. This admonition caught me off guard. Conventional wisdom says suppressor makers will thrive if the legal burdens are removed and you have the ability to buy a suppressor over the counter or via mail.
He explained the market would certainly explode but the American segment of the industry would suffer as China would swoop in and capture the vast majority of suppressor sales based on price, assisted by their friends at Amazon. It’s an interesting proposition.
According to him, the design technology of suppressors is quite sophisticated while the manufacturing piece is relatively straightforward. If you can steal a design or reverse-engineer, it’s a pretty simple matter of machining or 3D printing a suppressor.
He said if suppressors are made legal, you’ll quickly see the market flooded with cans made in China — or other places — and sold at a fraction of the cost of today. Imagine, as a U.S. suppressor manufacturer, trying to fight back against $49.95 Chinese knockoffs on Amazon.
Obviously, it’s a daunting task and you’d be one of the few manufacturers to pull it off. In the end, most people — regardless of what they claim — take “cheap” over “better.”
This is why, if suppressors do suddenly become an over-the-counter purchase in the coming months, the credo “Buy American” will be important if you want to keep our American suppressor industry healthy and intact.
Buy Now, Don’t Pay Later
I’ve often pointed out we’re living the “Golden Era.” We have more new firearm, ammo and accessory designs than ever and things reaching the market are of better quality than ever before. And now, all this golden goodness might be even cheaper — if you keep a sharp eye.
It’s pretty clear we’re hitting one of the periodic downturns in the firearms business due to economic and political factors. Coming on the heels of the pandemic buying frenzy of a few years ago, the crashing trend lines look even worse. Companies are facing red ink in barrel-sized quantities and are now scrambling to “right-size” their business. As one indicator, several friends have recently been laid-off from their high-level positions with gun manufacturers.
However, there is one potential winner: You.
Steep discounts and bargains are starting to become the norm as sellers are trying to get rid of inventory which is eating away at profit while gathering dust in a warehouse or on a store shelf. With shooters buying less, the discounts and incentives are growing bigger as sellers try desperately to “turn” inventory.
This means a couple of things. First, if you keep an eye out for bargains, you’ll find sale items guaranteed to delight the tightest penny-pincher. Secondly, used guns aren’t getting any cheaper as people are holding onto their firearms rather than purchasing replacements. Conversely, If you’re selling a pre-owned gun, it’s a great time.
In the end, it’s just like hunting — be alert, make a quiet stalk and take the shot when it is presented. In this case, you might bag the gun or accessory of your dreams.