Why do the gun lobby and gun manufacturers persist in attempting to market their most destructive products on the civilian market? I understand the justification for research and development of new and improved weaponry for law enforcement and war making (although I don't like it)… but are weapons of war, capable of mass carnage, necessary for hunting or personal defense? In light with our second amendment right to bear arms, in this day and age, the most effective defense against political oppression is the argument of ideas, not physical aggression.
I would suggest that gun makers develop their experience into other related directions; for example, support and promote the sport of target shooting as a pastime suitable for all ages. Make sports equipment capable of accurately hitting a target from a distant trajectory which dissolve on impact so they are minimally injurious to humans. In essence, make the sport as ubiquitous as darts or pool. Additionally, take advantage of the popularity of first person shooter video games… create novel and imaginative shooters or develop narratives for girls… In the video game market, imagination is more limiting than public opinion and government regulation.
No comments:
Post a Comment