viz.

I agree! I'm still puzzling over the caption, which seems to imply that sex toys possess an inherent dangerous quality that gun (GUNS!!) don't, and that the issue of the toys' legality should definitely be up for debate. I suppose I'm taking issue with the embedded value preference of the caption, which uses guns to draw the line for what is an acceptable legal purchase. This means that each time I read it, my brain keeps wanting to switch the nouns, so that the caption instead reads: "Should buying guns be as easy as buying sex toys?" But to return to your point, the implication seems to be the same as the indicated value preference in the caption - visually, guns must be less risque to depict than sex toys despite the much deadlier acts in which they are involved.

On another note, I read an article on the National Association for Sexual Awareness and Empowerment (NASAE) website about Joanne Webb, a fifth grade teacher in Burleson, Texas who police arrested in 2003 for selling sex toys. The article quotes Joanne's criticism of the finer points of the law, saying, "This law is about how you represent what the product is for. I can have the most obnoxious item in the world, and as long as I call it a 'novelty,' I can sell it all day long. If I educate you on how to use it, it's illegal." Which, for me, highlights the weird nature of the (finally overturned) law, in which the point is not the owning of a sex toy (which has been legal for quite some time), but the circulation and purchasing of them in the state of Texas.