There's a website up today asking that gun buyers "share the safety" by sharing guns with people in "impoverished" areas. The shared guns will supposedly go to "locations with highest incidences of police, security guard, and vigilante violence against unarmed citizens."
Yes, it apes the NRA's website design. Yes, the links all take you to legitimate sites. No, it's not real.
Both the NRA and Smith & Wesson have denied knowledge of it. I don't see how it doesn't constitute libel.
The bigger question is, why stoop to this? That site cost money and effort. It isn't a weekend project by some college student. It's obviously fronted by one of the major groups, but the whois information for the site is redacted.
This isn't the first time they've done something like this, even in the recent past. The question remains: if the arguments of gun-control advocates are so compelling and (they claim) resonate with a vast majority of the public, why do they have to resort to these sorts of deceptions?
EDIT: Fake spokesman Hensley Cocker is actually Jacques Servin in a fake Santa beard. No, really. Among Servin's many endeavors was the fake gunshop ad starring an actor from Grand Theft Auto, which he did in cooperation with States United.