A New York Times review of a PBS program on Annie Oakley -- generally quite a positive review -- begins:

Plenty of women accomplished plenty of things in the first century or so of United States history, so it's a little dismaying to think that the country's first female superstar was famous not for her voice or her musicianship or her brain, but for her ability to shoot firearms accurately....

Even if her particular talent is not to your liking, it would be difficult to watch this program and not be awed by the woman's life....

Why exactly should it be dismaying to think that the country's first female superstar was famous not for singing ability (one form of trainable physical talent) but for athletic ability (another form of trainable physical talent)? It seems to me that, if anything, female success in a traditionally masculine field (sports generally, and target-shooting in particular) would help advance respect for women and equality for women more than female success in a less traditionally masculine field (singing).

Moreover, even if one opposes private gun ownership for self-defense, Oakley wasn't famous for that -- she was famous for marksmanship, which was then and now a sport (today, an Olympic sport).

Now naturally the author of the article is entitled to dislike marksmanship as a sport, and to find everything having to do with guns to be icky (even when the only thing being damaged is targets). But it does seem to be telling that the dislike of guns among some, dislike that would lead to two mentions in the first two paragraphs of the review (and "a little dismay[]" that a woman superstar would excel at sports rather than at singing), extends to sporting use of guns as well as to military, defending, and hunting uses.