Homicidal Advertising & Marketing

Discussion in 'National Laws, Bills and Politics' started by gunsmoker, Nov 14, 2019.

  1. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,535
    680
    113
    Rather than direct the threads about the Remington v. Sandy Hook victims lawsuit in Connecticut in an off-topic direction, let's have a new thread JUST ON THIS ONE ASPECT OF IT-- the objection some people (leftists, pacifists, anti-gunners) have to guns being designed as weapons, and marketed as weapons, intended for homicide (killing people), not sport.

    Keep in mind that "homicide" includes justified use of deadly force. "Justifiable homicide" is a well-known term in the criminal justice world, and probably to the general public as well.

    Everybody except the most rabid, brain-dead, anti-gun Kool-Aid drinking haters on the Left agree that there are many circumstances where a law-abiding citizen has a legal (and moral) right to use a gun to kill, wound, or threaten to kill, some violent criminal. Sometimes even a non-violent criminal who is stealing stuff, and gunfire is the only way to prevent him from successfully escaping with the loot.

    BUT WHAT MANY PEOPLE SEEM TO DISAGREE WITH, and object to, is the idea that an otherwise rational and civilized person would want to own a firearm SPECIFICALLY for such a purpose, and not simply have a general-purpose sporting gun handy to press into service as a defensive tool in an emergency.

    Joe Biden's famous suggestion to get a "double barreled shotgun" for home defense is likely based on such a doctrine-- sporting guns can be utilized as defensive weapons, but it's absurd and unreasonable to want a purpose-built weapon that performs better in combat roles as it does in sporting roles (unless, I would add, the "sport" is just a game intended to simulate combat. All these "action pistol" or "3-gun matches" are that kind of sport. Training for homicide, not just sport for the sake of sport.)

    Other people, even other gun owners, think it's crazy to want to own an AR, an AK, or an UZI for home defense, or riot control, or the zombie apocalypse, or whatever. They say that graddaddy's deer rifle and duck gun are the only weapons you need. And maybe a pistol, normal sized, normal looking, holding 6-8 rounds. Because those are multi-purpose guns, and they don't scream "I'M BUILT TO HURT PEOPLE!" to the public.

    In the Connecticut lawsuit against Bushmaster, the families of the Sandy Hook mass-murder victims have alleged that Bushmaster / Remington Arms was negligent in advertising purpose-built killing machines like the semi-auto AR-15 carbine to the general public, through print ads and videos that touted those guns as being the kind used by military commandos, SWAT teams, and rugged survivalists. The plaintiffs say that it's wrong to direct such ads to an audience made up mostly of non-cops, non-military, private citizens who don't have any special government job that requires them to bear arms or put themselves into a combat situation.

    I THINK THIS IS LIKE SAYING: "Stay in the closet, you homos. If we can't make it a crime to be gay, then we'll make it a crime, or a tort (something you get sued for) to promote gayness in public. Keep your perversions to yourself." If anybody asks a man who that other man is that he's sharing a motel room with, that man better lie and say it's his brother. Or his business partner, and they're saving the business money by minimizing travel expenses as they stay in this motel prior to tomorrow morning's trade show or sales call. If a gay dude wants a vibrating butt stretcher, he can't order one from a gay sex toy catalog-- he'll have to order it from the "sexual aids" section of a "medical and therapeutic products" catalog, side by side with arm slings, leg braces, hot water bottles, etc.

    And that would apply to heterosexual products, too. Like a sex vibrator, obviously a sex toy, being marketed discreetly as a "deep tissue massager" or "circulation stimulator" for housewives, and little old ladies, to get some relief from those muscle aches in their legs or feet, or neck and shoulders. (yeah, right !)

    If a company makes sex lubricant and markets it for sex purposes, and sells it to anybody without pre-screening or vetting them whether they're gay or straight, married or single, STD-infected or healthy, then this company can be held liable for every and any incident of rape or HIV infection that involved their sex lube, right? Because if you sell some sex lube called "butt butter" or some similarly provocative name, and you market it in gay magazines and during commercials shown during gay-themed TV shows, you're complicit in the crime of gay "date rape." And you're going to be liable for people getting AIDS because your advertising and marketing promotes, or at least isn't inconsistent with, the heathen lifestyle of a gay swinger.

    As to both guns and sex products, I see a big segment of society as having the opinion of "I can't ban it, and you have the right to do it, but I demand you keep it in the closet and don't be open and honest about it. Have the decency to pretend it's something it's not."

    Is that what the anti-gun leftists want the gun industry to do? To pull all the ads that show people wielding an AR type carbine in a grimy concrete hallway, dressed in tactical vests and helmets, and instead show people using that same AR-15 carbine, telescoping stock and Trijicon optic still in place, dressed in "office casual" attire and shooting round bullseye targets at a firing range?
     
  2. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,535
    680
    113
    If "they say" this is the wrong way to advertise a semi-auto rifle with a paramilitary heritage to American civilian shooters and gun enthusiasts:

    [​IMG]


    Is this one better? Would the Fudds and gun-grabbers be OK with this Springfield ad for the XM-15 rifle with its classy wood furniture and a leather sling obviously intended for use at the firing range, taking careful aim at bullseye targets from the prone and sitting or kneeling positions?

    Springfield XM15 wood.jpg
    ...

    Or should the ads be more explicit, and eliminate all imagery and wording that suggests combat or military service, and stick to just hunting and sport shooting?

    Like this ad, also from H&K, but featuring their hunting rifles, not the HK 91 or 93 battle rifles.

    [​IMG]
     

  3. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    "In a world of compromise, some men don't." I love those old H&K ads.

    But the dude does have his finger on the trigger when he is obviously not about to shoot.
     
  4. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,608
    1,704
    113
    Man-portable firearms came into being for a single purpose - to kill or wound an opponent. Period. That's what the Chinese thinking was in the 12th or 13th century when they developed the first rudimentary firearms. That's been the primary incentive for every manufacturer since then. That those same firearms can be used in sports related activities was a secondary benefit. I say your - or the gun grabbers - initial premise is backwards.
     
  5. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,535
    680
    113
    Single-barrel shotguns may have evolved from muskets intended for battlefields of the 15th to 19th centuries, but plenty of gun companies designed, built, and sold purely sporting models, not at all intended for homicide.

    Many other companies had a few paramilitary / law enforcement models in their catalog, but they were known for selling sporting guns. That was their bread and butter line of products.

    [​IMG]
     
  6. phantoms

    phantoms Senior Mumbler

    6,204
    183
    63
    Why just advertising to civilians? Why not advertising to military, police, etc.

    This person "stole" these guns, not purchased them. If he was motivated by advertising then how can you limit that to civilian use advertising?
     
  7. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,535
    680
    113
    Advertising the homicidal nature of guns to people whose job includes killing, or threatening to kill, people with the Government's approval can't be called negligent.
    Cops and soldiers are SUPPOSED to have guns, and the guns they have are SUPPOSED to be specifically built and modified to be weapons of combat, not sports equipment.
     
  8. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,608
    1,704
    113
    Then they don't understand what the actual purpose of a firearm is, do they?
     
  9. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,608
    1,704
    113
    That firearms can be used for "sporting" purposes ignores why they were developed in the first place.
     
  10. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,608
    1,704
    113
    You (we) are letting them define the terminology for the debate. That's the problem we always have and never change it. They set the trap and we continue to walk right into it. We are fighting on a battlefield prepared by them. We will lose.