REALLY? This is seriously an ok headline?
 

Minutemen Gun Down Niners

After the absolutely ridiculous amount of shooting tragedies recently, someone actually though it was ok to refer to one team gunning down another?

Yes, I get that it refers to their mascot, but it's still TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE.

ETA: Fixed link.

*facepalm*

I honestly doubt anyone's going to change, but it would be nice if they did.

I may be in the minority, but I don't see it as inappropriate. As you said, AF, it's referring to the mascot, and it's not like they said "Minutemen Go On Shooting Rampage Against Niners" or something. It's doing its job as a headline by attracting attention.

Well I'm in the minority with you. Of course I was one of those people that thought changing the Washington Bullets to the Washington Wizards wasn't gonna curb gun violence in DC.

On the upside, UMass won! :D

... right. I think there's a difference between firearms-related references (of which we have tons just in everyday life - a basketball player could be a "sharpshooter" or have a record "in his sights" as well) and explicit calls to arms or references to specifically firing on others.

Just as it's OK for one team to "pillage" another but not to "rape" the opposition, I think it's a matter of degree, and this doesn't seem excessive or over-the-top.

*shrug* put me in the category of people who don't object to it because of the current tragedy, but think that it's language that shouldn't have been used for a sports pun ever.

I would put it in the same category as The Mustangs trample the Cowboys -- it has nothing to do with the sport and everything to do with the mascot.

Yep.

... which is completely fair, too. I think it has to be all or none - I'm not willing to go none. Some might be.

Maybe I'm just getting old (;)) but saying 'gun down' and 'slaughter' and 'slay' and so on just don't sound right when talking about a sporting event. It's probably just the old thing.

I'm not so much upset and offended by it as I am confused, and simply questioning why they would use this term. This example...

... sounds more like a headline that would be used in sports.. and it's clever. I understand that in both cases, it's all about the mascot. But.. "Gunned Down" just sounds.. strange.

Something like... "Minutemen Rush to Victory" or something like that would sounded more "sports-like".. I guess.

I don't know how better to explain that, but basically, I think they could have spent a few extra seconds to come up with something that sounded a little more appealing.

(and yay to UMass winning :D )

That would be an okay headline, but count me in those who don't have a problem with the original headline. Minutemen carried guns -- that's part of the iconic image of Minutemen.

The reality is that sports have always been used as something of a surrogate for more battle-like forms of aggression. I see a huge difference between using "gunned down" in a sports context where it fits the mascot and using it (or similar language) in political discourse.

(Not trying to be combative, so don't take it that way :))

Why is it OK to say a team is getting trampled outside of the context of them being physically run over?