The "antelope" in this add (pronghorn) aren't exactly exotic game. They are extremely numerous in the west (outnumbering people in the state I grew up in) and folks surely eat them.

I wonder if the early gun ads included less emphasis on what you'd do with them simply because gun ownership was more common; you didn't have to paint these gun use scenarios because they were already part of people's lives. Instead, they'd be more interested in details like (in the first ad) less chance of accidental firings.

I am including a link to an image of a 1913 advertisement for the Savage Automatic, which I instantly thought of when I saw the title of this post -- my father has an original copy of this, which is framed in our house.
http://www.magazineart.org/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=15820&g2_serialNumber=2

I see the exotic game hunting and WWII trends, but I'm not so sure about the first trend you've listed.

3 out of 4 of the ads you've shown from the 1900's are ads for revolvers. Revolvers are handguns, designed for self defense. Here's an ad for a rifle from the same collection on the "1900" page.

http://file.vintageadbrowser.com/gyfl1pdl7jbjm3.jpg

This ad emphasizes what the gun is for: hunting. Browsing the site, I couldn't find any handgun ads from any of the decades that depicted a handgun in use. I think the trend here (if there is one) is that handguns, across decades, are advertised by, "the benefits of the gun itself," rather than, "what the gun [is] for."

Interestingly, this 1904 ad, found on another site, touts "the benefits of the gun itself" as well as it's intended use.

http://www.theblogofrecord.com/tag/vintage-gun-advertisements/

Can someone please explain to me how ravens (I think those are ravens?) are pests? I think I must be missing something.

I don't really think this a fair generalization. The first few adds are for handguns, then .22's and shotguns, and then larger .308's and so on. One ad is for ammunition, and not the gun itself.

These guns are tools used for very different purposes. You wouldn't want to blow a dollar a round to shoot crows or foxes, for instance. And most people don't hunt with revolvers.

Wouldn't you expect different ads for different sorts of tools?

Jesus Christ, we get it already, you've got a huge boner for gun violence. Post about something else for cryin' out loud!!!

"carrying a gun makes it more likely that you’ll be shot in the encounter."

"compared with control participants, shooting case participants were significantly more often Hispanic, more frequently working in high-risk occupations1,2, less educated, and had a greater frequency of prior arrest. At the time of shooting, case participants were also significantly more often involved with alcohol and drugs, outdoors, and closer to areas where more Blacks, Hispanics, and unemployed individuals resided. Case participants were also more likely to be located in areas with less income and more illicit drug trafficking"

I think that study proves its more likely you'll be shot IN PHILADELPHIA. It doesn't say much about the kind of social conditions in many other places in the USA.

Carrying a gun also makes you more likely to successfully resist rape. So, there's that, too.

It would be more interesting if this showed the ads from the last two decades for comparison.  

It seems to me like this is a great start to a piece taking a closer look at how guns are advertised and such, but it seems to me that what most people here are reacting to is that there are not enough advertisments that form a cohesive theme, and that leaves any argument, explicit or otherwise, with a lot of holes in it. A more comprehensive look at gun ads I think would yield a better picture I think. Very interesting subject though!

Dude that jsut looks liek its gonna be good. WOw.
www.usaAnon.tk