The Maelstrom of Violence

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-03-2017, 05:27 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(07-03-2017, 05:09 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-03-2017, 02:22 PM)Mikebert Wrote: About the NRA ad.  Nobody saw it as an ad to promote gun sales?  Guns last a long time if properly cared for. Guns purchased for specific purposes like hunting  is a saturated market segment. Hunting is not a growing sport.  How often do you need to replace one of your hunting guns?  Not very often, so there is little sales potential there. Now what is the purpose of a hunting gun? To kill animals.  What is the purpose of a military weapon?  To kill people. These were traditionally the two most important market segments, sales of weapons to civilians hunters and weapon sales to the military.

Today there is a new market segment,  military-styled semi-automatic weapons.  What is their purpose? I suspect it is a fashion statement.  Guns in the first two categories are tools.  Once you have good tools, you only are going to buy when you want to replace an old one.

In contrast, one cannot never have too many fashion statements, as the purpose is to signal social status.  

The ominous footage shown in the ad provides a justification for gun owners to be a "sheepdog" as opposed to a sheep, when faced by amorphous threats from people you don't like. The sheepdog lifestyle is best illustrated by the arsenal you have acquired. Encouraging conservative men to purchase ever more weapons keeps demand high for the industry--which is something you would expect from an industry group like the NRA.

The bold thought did occur to me.  If so, they are ready to escalate the spiral of rhetoric for the sake of profit.  I'd view this as irresponsible, but don't know their real motivation.

I can't think of a better reason for escalating the spiral of rhetoric. Profit is a sacrosant conservative value. The idea of leftists being scary to conservative gun owners seems like a stretch to me. Any of the conservative gun owners here find the ad scary?

Interesting question. With fully automatic fire disabled, the civilian versions of the military weapons aren't more effective functionally. They just set a different mood and attitude.

As far as I know, the reasons for the physical differences in construction was originally economic. Traditional civilian guns often feature fancy woodwork, unnecessary, decorative without impacting function. To the military with limited budgets, they aren't going to pay for fancy woodwork. You get bare metal anodized black.