Why would gun industry ask film industry to do product placement for M134 Miniguns, M240 machine guns, or Thompson submachine guns when they can't sell full auto guns to civilians since 1986?
Later, I realized that the reason for those commercials was to make IBM more or less synonymous with "computers" in my adolescent mind. They were playing a very long game... too long, as it turned out, but still not an altogether bad strategy. Maybe that's why the arms manufacturers do similar things.
If he were alive today, I'd ask him some other hard-to-answer questions, such as "Why are the Democrats still obsessing over gun control, when all it does is cost them one election after another?" I guess it's just another misguided long game.
I had to look up two of the three, even though I think I'm reasonably well-versed in guns. So if it is a long game, it's a really long one.
The military also has a stake in glamorizing weaponry and warfighting, and they definitely have a symbiotic relationship with Hollywood in that respect.
Because tens of thousands of Americans are being killed every year, including children being massacred? [1]
Incidentally, those crazy Democrats were only asking for a ban on assault weapons, which was in place from 1994 to 2004, and supported by Ronald Reagan. He also supported the Brady Bill.
Of course, that was before the Republicans descended to the point where their whackjob would-be president suggested that his supporters should shoot his opponent, and lied about having her jailed.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/20/gun-control-...
Respectfully, banning "assault" weapons isn't going to stop the vast majority of gun violence - ending the war on drugs, poverty/income inequality, and dealing with mental health would probably do a lot more without alienating millions of Americans who just like to hunt or make holes in paper.
Tens of thousands is a bit of a stretch as well. Suicide by firearm is not quite the same as violence against others.
True. However, it might well reduce the death rate, and that's better than nothing.
In America, you are far more likely to be killed by a toddler than by a terrorist. In a supposedly civilized country that is, frankly, insane.
> Tens of thousands is a bit of a stretch as well.
Average is 33,000 gun deaths per year of which 12,000 are homicides. A thousand a month. It's not good.
> alienating millions of Americans who just like to hunt or make holes in paper.
How many human lives are those actually worth? Is murdering wildlife something that anyone should applaud? Do people make holes in paper with assault rifles? What's the point in that?
Multiple studies [1] found no effect.
> In America, you are far more likely to be killed by a toddler than by a terrorist.
You can pick a day when a toddler killed someone but no terror attack happened. But if you look a longer timeframe, it's not even close. Especially if you include 3,000 people who were killed on 9/11.
Besides, you can make your chances of being shot by a toddler zero by not buying a gun, or by locking it up in a safe. Can't do that with terrorism.
> A thousand a month. It's not good.
No it's not. Most are gang related. Maybe it's time to look at war on drugs?
> How many human lives are those actually worth?
You need to also look at how many human lives are saved by guns. Do you think Petit family members [2] were glad they did not have a gun in the house?
> Is murdering wildlife something that anyone should applaud?
You can't murder wildlife. Murder is the unlawful killing of another human.
> Do people make holes in paper with assault rifles?
Yes, the army. Civilians in the US cannot buy assault rifles since 1986.
You probably meant assault weapons. Those are widely available outside of a couple of states with ridiculous laws like NY and CA.
The point of making holes in paper is to learn gun control. You want to control the gun so that you can make the holes where you want them when you want them, and not make holes where you don't.
I wish the police made more holes in paper [3].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#St...
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_in...
[3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Empire_State_Building_sho...
Basically you can 1) buy an old machine gun for a 200$ tax stamp under much more stringent regulations, 2) attempt to get a "Love Letter" (a letter given to you by a Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) to request guns for "testing"), or 3) build one for a CLEO as a Class 3 Manufacture with a provable intent to sell.
Certainly gun companies advertise directly to military as well, just as pharmaceutical companies are infamous for the extent they advertise to doctors. But there's some benefit to your product being a "household name", even if households aren't purchasing them.
And it goes beyond "well, military purchasers probably watch movies too", but the notion that such purchases end up in front of politicians, and eventually voters are in some fashion involved in how hot or cold desire for military spending is.