For years, America’s most iconic gun-makers turned over sensitive personal information on hundreds of thousands of customers to political operatives.
Those operatives, in turn, secretly employed the details to rally firearm owners to elect pro-gun politicians running for Congress and the White House, a ProPublica investigation has found.
The clandestine sharing of gun buyers’ identities — without their knowledge and consent — marked a significant departure for an industry that has long prided itself on thwarting efforts to track who owns firearms in America.
At least 10 gun industry businesses, including Glock, Smith & Wesson, Remington, Marlin and Mossberg, handed over names, addresses and other private data to the gun industry’s chief lobbying group, the National Shooting Sports Foundation. The NSSF then entered the gun owners’ details into what would become a massive database.
I am shocked that a gun company would do anything amoral.
It is pretty ironic the entire time the gun industry was fueling paranoia about the government creating a database of all the gun owners they themselves were secretly creating a database of all the gun owners.
And it was from people sending in warranty cards. They put themselves on the list of gun owners they were terrified of existing.
Projection as deflection? Well I never.
I think you mean immoral. Amoral is not related to morals, like choosing what color socks to wear at home.
I’m sorry to say your thought is incorrect. I was using this definition: amoral - having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong.
To expand on this, I was implying that morality is simply not a factor in their actions.
That’s the definition I’m going off of as well!
Ummm…I guess we are at an impasse then?
Well no, you meant what you meant! I just didn’t realize what you were trying to say, it happens :)
One argument against gun registration was that it would let nefarious forces quickly identify gunowners
This is why i cant take republicans seriously when they argue against firearm licenses. There already is a gun registry, they made it themselves.
Why did the gun manufacturers get the owners’ names? Usually the manufacturers sell to dealers and the dealers sell to users, I had thought.
Believe it or not, the article answers that question
Aha, OP might have included that in the article excerpt:
The data initially came from decades of warranty cards filled out by customers and returned to gun manufacturers for rebates and repair or replacement programs. A ProPublica review of dozens of warranty cards from the 1970s through today found that some promised customers their information would be kept strictly confidential. Others said some information could be shared with third parties for marketing and sales. None of the cards informed buyers their details would be used by lobbyists and consultants to win elections.
Do you think there might be some sort of corruption in the gun trade?
Is that even possible?
If the retailers are leaking the info, they should be mentioned too, of course.
The real answer is probably just customers doing warranty claims/registration.
It literally says that’s exactly what it is in the article
Who TF is sending in their registration cards…?
I mean, seriously, I’ve never sent one in. I threw all of them away, along with the cards asking me to join the NRA.
Also, as I’ve said before: if Dems would drop gun control entirely–and concentrate on changing the material conditions that result in gun crime–that would absolutely gut right-wing orgs that rely on fears of gun bans and confiscations to rile up a base.
What exactly are the “material conditions leading to gun crime”? I mean, if it’s poverty and education you’re thinking of the very same segment of the country that is pro-gun are pretty much the same ones that will refuse to expand government services or controls to provide access to improving these situations.
The reason we have so much gun crime is because we have so many guns and so few controls on them. Why do other countries thar have lots of guns have less gun crime? Because they control the shit out of them. They actually make gun owners responsible for their guns. Unlike the US, for instance, where ~70% of guns used in crimes are stolen or taken without the owner’s consent. How could this be? Because guns are uncontrolled toys left under vehicle seats, in gloveboxes, in door pockets, on the kitchen counter, in bedside table drawers…unsecured for everything from little Johnny to shoot little Susie or the gas station clerk to get a gun pointed at her and told to give up the cash. Someone’s guns get stolen? They get pissed at the violation, shrug, make an insurance claim, buy more, and their handgun gets used in a school drive-by shooting. Not their problem. Just more guns on the street. That’s the problem with gun crime. Guns are everywhere and relatively easy to get.
We’re just barely seeing the beginnings of people being charged with their guns being used in crimes with the parents of shooters bought them guns despite clear warnings. This can’t happen hard or fast enough IMO. Gun owners constantly pay lip service to responsible gun ownership but they’re the most resistant to any actual responsibility about them.
What exactly are the “material conditions leading to gun crime”?
Largely economic and educational, yeah, but also systemic racism and ingrained misogyny. While it’s facile–and accurate–to say that Republicans block efforts that would help these problems, the fact is that Democrats often do as well, opting to ban firearms and features rather than addressing root causes. I recall one particular violence intervention program that got cancelled in Chicago by–IIRC–Rahm Emmanuel. And unfortunately, many of the centrist Dems don’t really believe in programs that work, like enrolling inmates in college to reduce recidivism.
Why do other countries thar have lots of guns have less gun crime?
Other countries with a relatively high number of firearms also tend to have significantly better social welfare systems, more focus on rehabilitation than punishment in their criminal justice systems, and a lower rate of income inequality overall. If the US had, for instance, the social conditions of Finland, while still having the same number of firearms, I expect that you would see a sharply lower rate of firearm homicides. (Interestingly, Finland has very similar rates of suicide as we have in the US overall. I’m not sure what to make of that. But I also note that all of the Nordic countries seem to have fairly high suicide rates, and all of the Mediterranean countries tend to have quite low suicide rates. Climate and amount of sunlight, maybe?)
Aside from the, the right to keep and bear arms is an individual civil right. IMO, attempts to restrict that right should be subject to strict scrutiny. NYSPRA v. Bruen helped with that, but it hasn’t gone far enough. Think of it this way: voting is supposed to be a right. Republicans want to limit the ability to vote in ways that favor them. I would say that this is wrong, and that Republicans need to change the way that they govern or message so that they can attract more voters, rather than trying to make it harder to exercise a civil right.
or the gas station clerk to get a gun pointed at her and told to give up the cash.
…Which you aren’t very likely to do once economic conditions have been addressed. Not very many people go out and rob people for the sheer joy of it. Little Johnny shoots Susie because society has taught him that the only acceptable emotion is rage, and he can’t deal with his emotions in any other way. Again: address the messaging–about gender norms and expression in this case-- and fix the underlying problems, and then access to the tools of violence becomes immaterial because there’s no longer the impetus towards violence. Dems have made some inroads regarding gendered emotional expressions, but a lot of far-right influencers are actively working against those efforts.
parents of shooters bought them guns despite clear warnings
I think that this is probably appropriate in limited cases, such as with the Crumbleys in Detroit, MI, and with the Grays in Winder, GA. In both cases, the parents (father, in the case of Mr. Gray) had credible information from authorities that their child was at risk of harming other people, and both of them gave firearms to their child despite and after receiving the credible information about them being a risk. I would say that, if parents made a reasonable attempt to deny a child access to firearms, or did not have credible information about their child being a risk, then you should no longer be looking at a criminal or civil case. It seems to me that having your firearms locked inside your home or vehicle should be enough to say that you made a reasonable effort, because anyone that takes a firearm from those places knows that they’re breaking and entering already.
The desire to make locking firearms up is yet another way of making firearms prohibitively expensive, and functionally denies the right to keep and bear arms to people that can’t pony up the $1000+ for a locking firearms container that’s even slightly secure.
I thought guns were supposed to keep you safe.
Looks like Ruger is not a part of this other than them buying Marlin who did it back in the day.
