4 ms·

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 aut

by pps43 10y ago

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?

CamperBob2 10y ago
I asked my dad a similar question, growing up in the 1970s-1980s era. "Why is IBM running TV commercials for mainframe computers on The Dukes of Hazzard? Don't those cost millions of dollars? Do they think we're going to buy one?" He muttered something about how the commercials might encourage people to buy IBM stock. 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.
- pps43 10y ago
  Quick, which company makes M134, M240, or Thompson SMG? 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.
  - CamperBob2 10y ago
    I guess a cynical view (and probably that espoused by the article, which I haven't yet read) is that they're trying to normalize the presence of weaponry in popular fiction as well as in everyday social discourse. If you're in the gun business, you don't want the only people talking about guns to be your critics. The military also has a stake in glamorizing weaponry and warfighting, and they definitely have a symbiotic relationship with Hollywood in that respect.
    - mzw_mzw 10y ago
      That'd be like trying to "normalize" the presence of shirts, or automobiles. Guns have been ubiquitous in popular fiction of all kinds for decades, if not centuries, since they're such a useful device for drama or just entertaining fights. Don't forget how Dr. Watson always had his trusty pistol at hand whenever Holmes needed him.
  - rfrank 10y ago
    While I generally agree with your point, you also probably know what guns James Bond, Al Pacino in Scarface, Dirty Harry, and De Niro in Taxi Driver all shot.
- scholia 10y ago
  > "Why are the Democrats still obsessing over gun control, when all it does is cost them one election after another?" 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-orlando-attack-newtown-mass-shooting https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/20/gun-control-...
  - knz 10y ago
    > Because tens of thousands of Americans are being killed every year, including children being massacred? 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. 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.
    - scholia 10y ago
      > Respectfully, banning "assault" weapons isn't going to stop the vast majority of gun violence 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?
ocdtrekkie 10y ago
Why do pharmaceutical companies advertise products to regular people when they can't be purchased without a prescription from a doctor? 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.
sverige 10y ago
Civilians can own full auto guns as long as they pay the ATF tax ($200 last time I looked). Sellers have to have a Class III license.
- ptomato 10y ago
  In some states, yes – regardless, they must have been manufactured before 1986. I think the cheapest that comes these days is around $6k for a shitty Mac-10. An M16, for example, starts around $20k.
- gravypod 10y ago
  A post-86 can only be a dealer sample or a Class III build. Basically you can 1) buy an old machine gun for a 200$ 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.
qbrass 10y ago
The same reason car companies sponsor racing when they don't sell the race cars.

by pps43 10y ago

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?

CamperBob2 10y ago

I asked my dad a similar question, growing up in the 1970s-1980s era. "Why is IBM running TV commercials for mainframe computers on The Dukes of Hazzard? Don't those cost millions of dollars? Do they think we're going to buy one?" He muttered something about how the commercials might encourage people to buy IBM stock. 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.

pps43 10y ago
Quick, which company makes M134, M240, or Thompson SMG? 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.
- CamperBob2 10y ago
  I guess a cynical view (and probably that espoused by the article, which I haven't yet read) is that they're trying to normalize the presence of weaponry in popular fiction as well as in everyday social discourse. If you're in the gun business, you don't want the only people talking about guns to be your critics. The military also has a stake in glamorizing weaponry and warfighting, and they definitely have a symbiotic relationship with Hollywood in that respect.
  - mzw_mzw 10y ago
    That'd be like trying to "normalize" the presence of shirts, or automobiles. Guns have been ubiquitous in popular fiction of all kinds for decades, if not centuries, since they're such a useful device for drama or just entertaining fights. Don't forget how Dr. Watson always had his trusty pistol at hand whenever Holmes needed him.
- rfrank 10y ago
  While I generally agree with your point, you also probably know what guns James Bond, Al Pacino in Scarface, Dirty Harry, and De Niro in Taxi Driver all shot.
scholia 10y ago
> "Why are the Democrats still obsessing over gun control, when all it does is cost them one election after another?" 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-orlando-attack-newtown-mass-shooting https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/20/gun-control-...
- knz 10y ago
  > Because tens of thousands of Americans are being killed every year, including children being massacred? 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. 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.
  - scholia 10y ago
    > Respectfully, banning "assault" weapons isn't going to stop the vast majority of gun violence 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?

ocdtrekkie 10y ago

Why do pharmaceutical companies advertise products to regular people when they can't be purchased without a prescription from a doctor? 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.

sverige 10y ago

Civilians can own full auto guns as long as they pay the ATF tax ($200 last time I looked). Sellers have to have a Class III license.

ptomato 10y ago
In some states, yes – regardless, they must have been manufactured before 1986. I think the cheapest that comes these days is around $6k for a shitty Mac-10. An M16, for example, starts around $20k.
gravypod 10y ago
A post-86 can only be a dealer sample or a Class III build. Basically you can 1) buy an old machine gun for a 200$ 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.

qbrass 10y ago

The same reason car companies sponsor racing when they don't sell the race cars.