"You're saying that someone such as myself, ... can't be expected to not say anything adverse against any particular gun manufactured today?"
No, but I would expect that whatever you do say, if it's picked up by a reporter, will not end up looking like what it was when you said it.
FR is very popular these days, and our friends and foes have been known to quote from here.
There are some people here who trot out "plastic gun" every time a Glock is mentioned; never mind that here the shooter used ammunition which Glock said not to use. Even were the gun faulty, "plastic" had nothing to do with the situation whatsoever.
In other threads people have trashed a particular gun when the situation was actually that the wielder pointed it in an inappropriate direction (at his own foot) and pulled the trigger.
So no, I don't expect people to withhold their opinion! But I do expect that whatever they say ought to have some vague relation to the actual facts at hand.
I was in a gun shop near Meadville, PA, about 1997. The owner of the shop was telling me about a visit he had from a Glock salesman. The guy had a test gun with him. They tied the Glock by the trigger guard to the bumper of a pickup truck and dragged it around on the road and through the gravel driveway. Ran over it. Jumped up and down on it. Threw it up in the air and hit it with a baseball bat.
And it still worked.