Vintage Ad for Iver Johnson Revolver.

At $6.00 I'd buy 100.

The last Iver Johnson revolver I saw was worth about $6, today's money. Probably better as a paperweight.

Adjusted for inflation, that gun would be about $130. Modern handguns in that price range really are much better.

"were killed by with Iver Johnson revolvers"

The tool does not make the decision, the person did the killing.

one of the above people is probably holding a NRA membership card...any guess as to who?

I am OUTRAGED!
Guns should be banned!

Children should be banned too!
And dollies!
And advertising!
And the Internet!

It is amusing that the ad copy says, "they are not toys", yet the illustration depicts a child, presumably fiddling with one. Or dead. Now that I ponder the illustration, the child possibly seems slumped over and inanimate. Perhaps that's why "Papa says it won't hurt us" is written on the child's shirt. One wonders if such a gun, if so ineffective on children, would be of any use against an assailant?

BTW, Fodder, Nora, Tinderbox, what's with the lack of humor?

If "Papa says..." is written on the child's shirt, then "Accidental discharge impossible" is written on the bedsheets. That brings up a whole host of other questions - no, probably best to leave that one alone. Best leave mama and papa's private lives out of it.

I actually have one of these $6 Iver Johnson guns, still in its original box. My great-grandfather owned a store in Scranton North Dakota, and kept it behind the counter. Never fired.

Sweet ad! In those days, people were not the wussies they have become today. Back then, firearms were understood to be *useful tools*, not feared malevolent entities with minds, wills, and actions of their own.

The original poster's (Alex) modern conditioning is belied by his original choice of words ("killed by" rather than "killed with"). His word choce was probably unintentional, but reflects the anti-gun bias all over the media today. Someone in 1904 probably would not have made the same mistake. I'm guessing Alex is probably in his Twenties and doesn't realize that he has been thought-conditioned.

The same sort of subtle information coditioning is prevalent in every newstory that reports "an SUV losing control and mowing down pedestrians". Clearly, the SUV didn't lose control, but rather the driver. The Media (biased against SUVs for several reasons) almost always prefers to demonize the vehicle, rather than the inattentive driver. Similar demonizing of inanimate objects by the thought police, just a different "baddie".

For the record,
1. I don't own an SUV or even like them.
2. I don't own a gun, but I support free ownership of them for all willing non-felons.

Alex is in his mid-thirties and has had his thought conditioned and his brain washed so many times he has decided to leave it permanently in the rinse-cycle.

People with guns kill people - that much is true. But it's *easier* for people to kill other people with guns. There is a difference in scale here.

Hah hah Alex... at least your sense of humor has not been scrubbed away.

"Papa says it won't hurt us"

Ceepy.

"Papa says it won't hurt us"

Creepy.

I actually have this ad for sale at ebay. Come to think of it, it is creepy! Yipes.

I have an Iver Johnson .38S&W that belonged to my father-in-law. It is a piece of history, but lame by comparison to today's firearms. It had a special sliding bar between the hammer and the firing pin that prevented the revolver from discharging if dropped; even if you hit the hammer hard, it still wouldnt go off. That was an important safety feature back then, as many lives were lost by accidentally dropping a weapon. It wouldnt even fire if you pulled the hammer back and released it before it was fully-cocked. Say what you will, it was an innovation a hundred years ago.

I am so tired of this stupid misguided debate. When people want to screw you over or take advantage of you, they use this method to side track you. They don't debate the clear and obvious issue, they side track you into some kind of emotional quigmire that has at best little to do with the issue. Yes people (being nice) kill other people. News flash... this has happened for the last..oh I don't know..let's say forever! Any Policeman worth his salt will tell you that we are a reactionary force, i.e. after it's over, you have to be able to survive the encounter for the Police to be of any help. The anti-gun people say all the time that Law Enforcement Officers' support their cause, they are lying to you, we do not and will not because we know; If you can not protect yourself until I arrive then you will die. I personally don't care if anyone goes to jail for killing me, I figure at that point I won't care about much. The honest and basic truth of the matter is God created man, and Samuel Colt made them all equal. We welcome replies to this editorial. J

I found one in an old house, could it be restored.

I was given a old Iver Johnson handgun, It is a five shot 38.cal revolver. I was just wanting to know a little bit about it and about how much they are worth these days. It is not in ment condition but it sitll looks pretty good. Any takers. thanks

i have an old I.J breakover s/w .38---3" barrel and a hammer. top of barrel says patent---apr 6/86---feb. 15/87---may 10/87---dec.26/93--5 shot--grip has owls facing the barrel---butt has 64572--possibly could be G4572.--no letters anywhere and i checked the grip.--large sight on front and tiny one on rear. seems to be in excellent shape except blueing.----is this gun safe to shoot, i've heard bad things about them.--wouldn't want it to come apart or blow up if fired. thanks. any and all info. appreciated

TO: Tinderbox
This would be the internet you are using to bash?

Look at the darkness under her hands...I think she's been gut-shot. And the dolly saw it all.

i have an iver johnson 8 shot .22 it doesnt shoot straight and you cant kill what you cant hit its more of a dangerous noise maker fun to shoot though