Former Gun Company Exec (article)

[Rhea]

Former Gun Company Executive Explains Roots of America’s Gun Violence Epidemic

Ryan Busse once worked for a major gun-maker. He now warns about the danger of growing radicalization in the industry.

talkingpointsmemo.com

He states some things I had not considered before about what has changed from the PUSHING of gun culture perspective:

As I write in my book, there was a time not that long ago, maybe about 15 to 20 years ago, when the industry understood a sort of fragile social contract needed to be maintained on something as immensely powerful as the freedom to own guns

After Columbine in 1999, the National Rifle Association in very well-publicized meetings now, thanks to sleuthing and digging by reporters at NPR, we now have tapes of the meetings where they literally said, are we going to be part of the solution here? Or maybe we can use these things to drum up hate and fear in our members? We might even be able to use them to drive membership. And they chose the latter. They perfected that system for about seven or eight years, getting their feet underneath them. They figured out it can drive politics.

The Buffalo shooter wrote in his manifesto about perusing YouTube videos, social media accounts, all the places where tactical gear — which are some of the most egregiously advertised items in the firearms industry right now, bulletproof vests, helmets, gloves, all things that weren’t marketed at all 20 years ago. He studied very carefully what bulletproof vest to wear, what tactical gear to wear, he used the exact same gun that was used in Sandy Hook, the Bushmaster XM-15, the same gun that was advertised in [Remington Arms’] man card campaign that told young men: “You don’t have a man card if you don’t have one of these rifles. And you do have a man card if you do have one of them.”

You know, I tell the story that 15, 20 years ago, the industry named guns like the Smith & Wesson 629 or the Remington 870 because you had [industry] attorneys that knew that even the names of guns could be important. They could encourage people to do irresponsible things. And so you’d never wanted to even name things that might encourage bad things to happen. Now we have a gun called the Wilson Urban Super Sniper. I mean, what are you supposed to do with that? We now have a gun called the Ultimate Arms Warmonger. What are you supposed to do with that? We now have an AR-15 company called Rooftop Arms, as in when you don’t get what you want, you vote from the rooftops. And what happened in Highland Park? A kid got up and killed people from a rooftop. You see the old self-imposed responsibility; those old norms of behavior have been just completely trashed.

That last one - the names of those guns. That is so montrously irresponsible that I am floored.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Sure the gun industry has engaged in some slimy advertising. However, I think he's way overstating the case.

I don’t think universal background checks are an infringement.

This is a case of the devil being in the details. The question isn't the checks per se, but exactly what situations they apply to. Once again I'll point out the local situation where they polled in the 90% range and passed at 50% + a hair and got tossed by the AG because the measure was impossible as written. The bozos who got it on the ballot didn't even bother with how things worked and wrote a measure that the FBI quite correctly told us to pound sand. (Although, note, that I favor turning this upside-down--you get a license, you show the license to get the gun. Since it becomes a few-second zero-cost operation you can check all transfers without imposing a burden.)

I don’t think strengthened red flag laws are in any way an infringement.

The proponents of red-flag laws never realize they're effectively a guilty-until-proven-innocent measure. They'll never be mistakes (remember that case somewhere in the south, the guy whose guns were seized didn't remotely match the physical description of the person who got flagged, but he had no power to compel his accuser to show up in court and say he's not the one? Clearly either a false name or two people with the same name), and they'll never be used maliciously (think of all the revenge against exes we see--without adequate controls red flag could so easily be used to take away someone's profession.) Once again, I don't mind the concept but it needs to balance the two sides.

I don’t think that controlling irresponsible marketing is an infringement on our Second Amendment rights.

And here's where he goes off the rails. This is a First Amendment issue!

Now, can you draw a direct line from that ad to those two shooters? I don’t know that you can draw a direct line, but I think you could damn sure draw an obtuse line.

Sure you can--but he's wrong to blame marketing for this. This is emulating someone they saw as a hero. That's the problem--shooters become infamous, others copy that because they want to be a somebody, not a nobody.

The other problem is Faux Noise etc keeping pushing their fear propaganda. That's a far bigger problem than anything the gun makers do.

 

[Toni]

I’m expected to demonstrate that I know the rules of the road and that I am not just competent but proficient in my ability to safely operate a motor vehicle in order to obtain a drivers license. If I wanted to drive a semi or a school bus or similar, I’d have to undergo further training and licensure.

As part of the licensing procedure, I must take an eye exam. Certain medications and certain substances would preclude me from legally operating a motor vehicle. I’m expected to maintain my vehicle in safe working condition and to properly utilize signals to let other drivers know that I intend to change lanes, stop or make a turn. I’m expected to drive within posted speed limits and in keeping with conditions of the roads, weather, etc. Certain medical conditions would preclude me from legally driving a motor vehicle.

Furthermore, I am required by law ( and common sense) to carry automobile insurance in case of any accident resulting in injury or worse or property damage.

I can lose my privilege of driving an automobile or even go to jail if I fail to comply with these laws—even if I injure no one.

These are all common sense laws and regulations that help everyone stay safe.

There is nothing onerous about expecting gun ownership to carry similar responsibilities and restrictions as operating a motor vehicle.

Gun owners are not some special class of citizen whose desire to run around like they are some paramilitary freedom fighters with the emotional sensitivities of a two year old, although they do exhibit similar senses of entitlement.

I take that back. Even a two year old badly in need of lunch and a nap is more reasonable.

The automobile industry was expected to make changes to the design and safety features of their products. Now, vehicles are given safety ratings as part of their advertising.

Today more people lose their lives due to guns than die in automobile accidents.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

Company advertising does not have normal First Amendment protections. They can be prosecuted for illegal forms of advertising, and false claims in ads. Fox News has only been able to get away with their false claims because they are allegedly news (however Dominion showed they can be got).