Current Events > The gun industry is now ended.

(+) Yeah! (+)

darkjedilink posted...

The vast majority of people in the US want guns. We know this because the cast majority of people in the US own guns.

I didn't say they don't.
---

darkjedilink posted...

The vast majority of people in the US want guns. We know this because the cast majority of people in the US own guns.

A vast majority of people in the US own guns? You sure about that?

https://news.gallup.com/poll/264932/percentage-americans-own-guns.aspx

Thirty percent of U.S. adults say they personally own a gun, while a larger percentage, 43%, report living in a gun household.

Let me guess, this is "fake" because it's "not accurately" reporting how many people don't report? And I say this as someone who actually does live in an apartment with someone who does own a firearm and have grown up around them my entirely life and have no issue with gun ownership whatsoever. But there's no need for you to lie about the percentage of people who own guns.

---

GregShmedley posted...

They mainly advertise in random outdoor magazines. Blaming them for shootings for said advertising is a ridiculous stretch.

If anything sells guns, it'd be action movies and games.

I don't know about this particular case, mine is a general comment. And you bet gun manufacturers are paying to have their products in games and movies
---

I think we should "go down the path" of acknowledging that gun manufacturers don't care how many people are killed, they just care how many guns they sell. Like with e.g., cars, there should be an effort to regulate the industry such that gun-related injuries are reduced. There's not even such an intention on the right. Because they also just care about money, not about public health issues.
---

The Great Muta 22 posted...

But there's no need for you to lie about the percentage of people who own guns.

while no one can say how much for certain, there does stand a good chance that its atleast several percentages higher than whats actually reported. private sales with no transaction records are still things in half of the country while 80% AR lowers and glock build kits are almost completely untraceable as well as a boom in 3d printed firearms which is only going to get easier over the years.

OT: they have no case by trying to go after the ad campaign and marketing and if this goes through it pretty much means anyone can sue any gun maker for a death which in turn will put the manufacturers out of business and make firearms extinct. it doesnt matter how many regulations are on the books (ala cars which isnt a good comparison) that it might force when you get down to the "guns are designed to kill and they killed x individual".

GregShmedley posted...

scar the 1 posted...

I think we should "go down the path" of acknowledging that gun manufacturers don't care how many people are killed, they just care how many guns they sell. Like with e.g., cars, there should be an effort to regulate the industry such that gun-related injuries are reduced. There's not even such an intention on the right. Because they also just care about money, not about public health issues.

How would you propose to regulate the industry to reduce deaths/injuries? I will say that starting with how they advertise is completely illogical. Unless, again, we can prove their magazine ads are somehow influencing people to commit violence with their product.

I would say step one would be to stop blocking funding for research. There are naturally several angles to attack it from, and one of them could definitely be regulating ads. But again, the CDC (IIRC) aren't allowed to do any research. Another reasonable step would be any attempt to remove the gun lobby from lawmakers. It's fairly obvious that they're not interested in anything that would hurt their profits.
---

GregShmedley posted...

scar the 1 posted...

I think we should "go down the path" of acknowledging that gun manufacturers don't care how many people are killed, they just care how many guns they sell. Like with e.g., cars, there should be an effort to regulate the industry such that gun-related injuries are reduced. There's not even such an intention on the right. Because they also just care about money, not about public health issues.

How would you propose to regulate the industry to reduce deaths/injuries? I will say that starting with how they advertise is completely illogical. Unless, again, we can prove their magazine ads are somehow influencing people to commit violence with their product.

Should they be allowed to advertise that their guns are good at killing people in the first place?
---

Yeah the actual advertising they used for the AR15 at various points.

What the hell else is "Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered" supposed to mean?
---

GregShmedley posted...

Do you have an example?

Of course he doesn't. Literally no gun company advertises their guns for offensive use.
---

The Admiral posted...

GregShmedley posted...

Do you have an example?

Of course he doesn't. Literally no gun company advertises their guns for offensive use.

A couple of years old, but
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ar-rifles-marketing-tactics-scrutiny-mass-shootings/

"They used images of soldiers in combat. They used slogans invoking battle and high-pressure missions," Joshua Koskoff, a lawyer for the families, told justices at a hearing. "Remington may never have known Adam Lanza, but they had been courting him for years."

Bio1590 posted...

Yeah the actual advertising they used for the AR15 at various points.

What the hell else is "Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered" supposed to mean?

Probably home defense.

LMAO did Admiral really try to attack me despite having me blocked?

What an absolute fucking joke.

gamer167 posted...

Probably home defense.

And the entire reason they need to be afraid is because it's extremely fucking efficient/good at killing people. That's literally the point. That's literally what that statement is for.

"Ultimate military combat weapons system" yeah that totally sounds like it's being advertised for fucking plinking at the range.
---

GregShmedley posted...

While lobbyists in politics is a separate conversation to be had, I can't get on board with this. Gun rights organizations such as VCDL or GOA are there to help fight laws that most firearms disagree with.

It's a broader conversation definitely, not necessarily a separate one.

I'm not familiar with the work of those gun rights organizations, so I'm obviously speculating. But I really can't see those types of interest groups happily supporting things like e.g., if you own a gun you need to store it in a very secure gun safe (separate from ammo) or other precautions to firearms from easily reaching black markets. Or whatever policy would get cooked up based on evidence and best knowledge rather than optics. Yours would probably be a more educated guess, but of course it's difficult to say much since we don't really know what such legislation might look like.
---

While I am anti-gun by nature, I highly doubt they would win that court case. Remington didn't cause the incident, some psychopath did. Doesn't matter if they used a gun, sword, lance, slingshot, mustard gas, whatever he would use, their the one at fault.

Civilian gun industry is about to get fucked on.

---

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-sandy-hook/u-s-supreme-court-will-not-shield-gun-maker-from-sandy-hook-lawsuit-idUSKBN1XM1W8

---

GregShmedley posted...

They likely wouldn't support that law, no. But I wouldn't either as it defeats the purpose of having a firearm at home for self defense--keeping the ammo separate, that is.

As for any variant of it, I can't speak for gun rights organizations as I'm admittedly not familiar with every stance on every law or variances.

Yeah it's pointless to really speculate since there are so many uncertainties, but it's very possible that findings from research would result in recommendations that don't really go in line with ideology. Like for example, guns at home for self defense against sudden attackers might be found to be really inefficient and dangerous, and not a scenario worth safeguarding. Etc. But the point is we don't really know how such recommendations would look because the research is blocked.

(and IIRC (I'm too lazy to scroll up) we both agree that such research shouldn't be blocked)
---

Tropicalwood posted...

Technically they aren't allowed to sue either since suing them for crimes committed by individuals was barred by congress. But the case at hand is that Remington somehow promoted the use of their weapons to shoot up a school, so a judge decided to let the suit go forward.

Ive definitely seen some edgy Smith and Wesson ads suggesting to use their guns for suicide before, so this actually sounds pretty plausible


---

Pus_N_Pecans posted...

Tropicalwood posted...

Technically they aren't allowed to sue either since suing them for crimes committed by individuals was barred by congress. But the case at hand is that Remington somehow promoted the use of their weapons to shoot up a school, so a judge decided to let the suit go forward.

Ive definitely seen some edgy Smith and Wesson ads suggesting to use their guns for suicide before, so this actually sounds pretty plausible

Link?
---

scar the 1 posted...

GregShmedley posted...

They likely wouldn't support that law, no. But I wouldn't either as it defeats the purpose of having a firearm at home for self defense--keeping the ammo separate, that is.

As for any variant of it, I can't speak for gun rights organizations as I'm admittedly not familiar with every stance on every law or variances.

Yeah it's pointless to really speculate since there are so many uncertainties, but it's very possible that findings from research would result in recommendations that don't really go in line with ideology. Like for example, guns at home for self defense against sudden attackers might be found to be really inefficient and dangerous, and not a scenario worth safeguarding. Etc. But the point is we don't really know how such recommendations would look because the research is blocked.

(and IIRC (I'm too lazy to scroll up) we both agree that such research shouldn't be blocked)

The research literally isn't blocked. Recommendations based on the research is what is blocked.
---

Ruvan22 posted...

The Admiral posted...

GregShmedley posted...

Do you have an example?

Of course he doesn't. Literally no gun company advertises their guns for offensive use.

A couple of years old, but
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ar-rifles-marketing-tactics-scrutiny-mass-shootings/

"They used images of soldiers in combat. They used slogans invoking battle and high-pressure missions," Joshua Koskoff, a lawyer for the families, told justices at a hearing. "Remington may never have known Adam Lanza, but they had been courting him for years."

Again, no actual example of an advertisement that in any way glorifies violence.
---

darkjedilink posted...

Link?

I did a little looking and couldnt find anything. I remember it from back in the mid 00s when I was in High School though.

---

darkjedilink posted...

The research literally isn't blocked. Recommendations based on the research is what is blocked.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment

Although not an explicit ban on gun research, the Dickey Amendment's vagueness has since blocked the CDC from funding studies on gun violence, for fear that the CDC would be financially penalized; as a result, the amendment is sometimes referred to as a ban on CDC-funded gun research.

Well woop dee doo. It's not technically blocked, it just effectively blocks all research. What a relevant distinction!
---

Oh, they are about to give us the ultimate gift in a few weeks.

---

I'm weeks away from constitutional carry and then I hear this.

---