Batool Alsamadi

Phil of Business Ethics

W, 2:30-5:00pm / Silverman
May 7, 2007 [due]

Marketing Firearms to Youth:

An Invitation to Tragedy

The average U.S. citizen gets hit with nearly 5,000 commercial messages per day

(Mehall, 2002). Our brains are always under assault. We are marinated in marketing all

the time. And no one wants marketers to target their children towards a product that

gives ladders to opportunistic harm. What marketers do to our kids today isn’t far from

what spy-ware companies try and do with your computer. Firearms are marketed through

many different canvases exposed to youth: from innocent gun replica toys to video

games; from PG-13 or R-rated films marketed toward youth; as well as participating in

sports such as hunting as a part of the American culture. Last year, firearms killed no

children in Japan, 19 in Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285

in America (VPC, 2006). Call me Tipper Gore if you will, but putting similar restrictions

on the marketing schemes of firearm industries similar to tobacco is a surefire way in

preventing one of the most preventable kinds of deaths. The marketing practice of

firearm industries in question harms the general public in terms of safety. Whether or not

the firearm marketing industry is following the example of tobacco companies in

cultivating children, focusing on future customers is an unethical marketing strategy. (I) I

will present an in-depth report that provides the strategic mechanisms involved in the

marketing of firearms toward youth; (II) I will give a report in defense of the firearm

marketing industry; (III) I will provide reasons through philosophical analysis that will

both defend and refute the opposing viewpoints of marketing firearms to children.
 I.

Numerically, firearm related statistics are presently hitting high notes. The results

of the firearm marketing industry has yielded troubling results; from school and mass

public shootings to lonely suicides, and most notably, accidental deaths (Knickerbocker,

1998). The alarming rates of school shootings have shifted many parents’, legislators’,

and safety advocacy organizations’ attentions to open up their eyes and notice the

marketing schemes of the firearm industry beaming everywhere. With school shootings

dating back as far as 1979, the alarming rate of occurrences didn’t peak in the U.S. until

the late 1990’s into the early 21st century (Indianapolis Star, 2006). In spite of the recent

shooting at Virginia Tech, school shooting occurrences in the U.S. have been on the

decline in the past 6 years (Exhibit A). Most of this is attributed from the efforts of Bill

Clinton’s second presidential term, where he encouraged legislation of barring residents

from keeping handguns in their homes. Very recently, a federal appeals court struck

down the renewal of such a legislation, founded upon a Second Amendment grounds that

gives one rights to the ownership of a gun.

However, gun control laws are only part of the answer. They may help hinder

situations like school shootings by reducing the accessibility of firearms to youth, but the

real answer lies within the messages we send to our children through a culture that

glorifies violence and guns in countless ways. Glorifying firearms and violence in our

culture is, in a sense, marketing (though sometimes unintended). Little is known to

whether or not Hollywood plays a role in playing an accomplice of marketing firearms to

youth through movies and music. Music and movies that are R-rated or marked with a

“Parental Advisory: Explicit Content” label are still being marketed toward youth
(Kleining, 2001). For example, R-rated movies are being reportedly marketed to

children under 17, and 80 percent of violence-ridden movies that feature the use of

firearms are promoted on television shows and websites followed by teens (Kleining,

2001). Whether or not Hollywood is intentionally marketing firearms by glorifying

violence through the media, it is an assumed public responsibility to market such content

to only a mature group of audience. Through the media and entertainment, common

themes used as vehicles for marketing firearms to youth include: Patriotism (associated

with patriotism, nationalism, and “being American”); Power (the firearm is portrayed as

conferring power to user); Distorted Reality (showing images of a bizarre

character/situation such as extraterrestrials - an interest that touches on children); and Sex

(associated with innuendo and/or imagery) (Saylor, Vittes, & Sorenson, 2004). If firearm

marketing is indeed done in ways touching on other themes such as “defense” and

“hunting” as they claim to, statistics show that 59% of men do not own a gun for self-

defense purposes (Saylor, Vittes, & Sorenson, 420). The negative outcomes of gun

violence far exceeds allowing and trusting a society for “defensive gun use” (Kleining,

2001). Because glorifying is a form of marketing that encourages youth to perform a

certain type of action (violence via guns), this can lead to misdirected fatal actions of

youth, such as school shootings (Saylor, Vittes, & Sorenson, 2004). Attorney General J.

Joseph Curran Jr. of Maryland and other politicians have been taking steps toward

limiting business practices of firearms (LaFollette, 2000). Massachusetts Representative

Edward Markey is threatening the firearm industry by introducing a legislation into

Congress that will allow the FTC to charge entertainment companies with “unfair trade

practice” when marketing products to children that would be illegal for them to buy
(Murphy, 2003). For example, when a child wants to purchase a CD labeled, “Parental

Advisory: Explicit Content,” the sale of this music album shouldn’t be purchased by a

child, as most of the time it is (Saylor, Vittes, & Sorenson, 2004). Neither is it realistic or

reasonable to assume that parents have full-control in knowing what they’re child will

buy without their presence (Kleining, 2001). Similarly, R-rated box-office movie tickets

are sold to only those who provide identification proving they are 18 and older; however,

video/DVD rental stores do not check for age verification as do the movie theatres

(Murphy, 2003). The marketing industry as a whole has been actively marketing adult

stuff to children while saying it’s the adult’s fault.

Additionally, the firearm marketing industry has its direct methods of marketing

without using entertainment and NRA. It has funneled marketing messages directly

toward children in many forms: toys, video and computer games, as well as “youth gun

safety programs” such as the ones offered by the National Rifle Association (NRA)

(Mehall, 2002). Exposing children to guns is as essential for hunting’s future as it is for

the gun industry (LaFollette, 2000). It is not a coincidence, that when the sales of guns

and hunting licenses in the mid-1980’s slumped nationwide, that camps provided by the

NRA for Youth Hunting began to increase recruitment in order to reverse dwindling

public support for blood sports and guns (LaFollette, 2000). Examples of firearm

marketing toward children is alarming. The firearm marketing industry uses video games

to reach children since the other ways would not be traditional means of marketing or

socially accepted by society. In a sense, they are using child consumer products as a

vehicle to disguise their messages (VPC, 2006). In some of the most widely played

computer games among youth, “Remington Top Shots” and “Colt’s Wild West Shootout,”
these two games allow players to select from a collection of realistic firearms with the

manufacturing brand printed on these guns as well (Seligman, 2000). Also seen in an

array of video system games, having the role of firearms present in a child’s leisure by

offering virtual versions of their deadly products, and introducing them to brand name

firearms that in turn engenders brand loyalty in future customers. Since the days of Joe

Camel and Spuds McKenzie, such flagrant marketing of a deadly product to children has

been unseen. Like these, other notable mainstream computer games such as “Quake,”

“Unreal,” “Marathon,” or “Duke Nukem,” allow players to act out in various forms of

violence towards virtual human beings. Scott Farrell, editor of Guns Magazine and

seemingly strong activate of the firearm marketing industry outlined his proposed ideas

about marketing firearm to children. He expressed ideas about creating some “state-of-

the-art” computer and video games that combine the use of real brand name guns,

exciting stories and scenarios – along with graphic, real life images of the story plots that

unravel (Farrell, 2001).

Marketing video and computer games with firearms seems to be working. An

explosive surge in the sales of video and computer games containing firearms holds their

desired target demography: 39 percent being under the age of 18 (VPC, 2006). What

makes this more troubling is the fact that the video game industry holds the top spot as

the fastest growing segment in the entertainment industry. In the span of four years, the

sales of video games purchased by this desired demography went from $3.2 billion to

$6.1 billion from 1995 to 1999 (Farrell, 2001). The danger in employing video and

computer games as the instruments for the firearm industry is twofold: they are putting

real life, brand name purchasable firearms into the hands of children, which then
approximates the real life experience of shooting and killing with the graphic

technologies available today (VPC, 2006).

For example, they have “youth model” firearms designed in ways that are smaller,

lighter versions for children (VPC, 2006). Further, with the firearm marketing industry

trying to put the hunting age as low as 8-years-old, it’s no wonder a firearm store in

Dallas recently opened up a “Kids Corner” gun section (Kleining, 2001). When

questioned about the responsibility of this action, shop owner Beverly Melton

emphasized that parents must emphasize safety when buying their child a gun since

they’re “dangerous.” No amount of training or even experience has been proven to make

a child safe with a gun (Glick & Sugarmann, 1997). If we continue in this same direction

of marketing strategies, we can soon expect a kids’ section in the liquor store as well,

maybe even kid-friendly cigars and cigarettes.

Marketing firearms to children through toy replicas have caused tragedies when

the toy was mistaken for a real gun, and vise versa. For example, there have been

instances where children have gotten killed by real guns they thought were toys; or police

offers having mistaken the toy gun replicas aimed towards them by children as real

weapons, consequently causing police offers to act quickly and fire at children (Tait, 33).

It is not fair to say these accidents were intended by firearm marketers; however, these

type of sequence of scenarios could have been foreseeable as potential reasonable human

errors. Further, these children’s toys have no restraints on marketing messages and

disposed freely to popular consumer markets such as eToys.com and amazon.com

(Seligman, 2000). Marketing toy gun replicas through children does not have any

benefits whatsoever that yields to overweigh the negative costs it has incurred. If toy
manufacturers want to market firearms toward children, most U.S. states have enacted

legislations that require the manufacture of firearm replicas in ways where it’s obviously

recognizable as a toy gun (e.g. using colors like neon green or orange, made out of

plastic, etc.) (Tait 33). The bottom-line is: marketing guns to youth through toy replicas

may lead to unforeseeable fatal accidents (Little, 5B).

Most parents who purchase firearm replica toys do so for their sons. Buying such

replicas steer male children towards violence (Tait, 32). You are in a corporate toy store,

noticing how shelves are stocked with firearm replicas of every shape and size: shotguns,

rifles, handguns. One would feel as if their inside of an NRA convention’s exhibit hall.

However, the question begs: are we socializing our children to become violent when we

encourage them with firearm replicas? While it is fair to hold that a scheme of this is

because of “unintentional marketing” (firearms are naturally glorified throughout the

American culture), this is irrelevant since every toy we give our children carries the

message that we approve of that toy - which leads to bigger things down the road. It is

important to keep in mind that children use toys to rehearse for real life because they’re

trying on roles and practice being an adult by using the tools that adults use (Tait, 32).

Would we want them practicing using guns? When adults provide children with toys that

suggest real weaponry, children become infected with the message that we are

encouraging them to play at violence (Tait, 32). It most instances, it is not the firearm

industries marketing these replicas to children - but its done off the foundations of being

part of a culture that glorifies guns and violence. This form of glorification, even when

not intended, is still marketing firearms to children - and should be regulated more closer.

Like the way the tobacco industry has been held liable, legislating a policy that
hold these marketing companies liable can help prevent one of the most preventable

kinds of deaths (Belluck, 12). In wake of the recent Virginia Tech shooting, the incident

has prompted to spark many flames among gun-control advocates as well as surviving

parents; Virginia is the most lax state in the U.S. concerning gun control, manufacturing,

sales, and the marketing of firearms (BBC, 2007). It proved gun control advocates

otherwise when Virginia maintained itself as the leading state with the lowest gun-related

fatalities (BBC, 2007). However, we’ve learned there is a tragic trade-off with allowing

this much room for freedom and trust. Had children of the 1980’s-1990’s generation not

been exposed with too much instances of the glorification of firearms, the perpetrator at

Virginia Tech would have probably chose a least-fatal alternative.

Like tobacco, firearm related fatalities remains one of the most preventable cause

of death in the U.S. (Workman, 1997). As a result, the federal government made it

mandatory to disclose Surgeon General warnings on all forms of marketing including

package, and prohibiting advertisements (Workman, 1997). Although there is no

mandatory law stating the absence of smoking is required in media marketed toward

youth, many filmmakers have on their own increasingly eliminated any form of tobacco

presence marketing toward children in order to avoid public scrutiny from advocacy

groups (Workman, 1997). This is because when having such federal laws as strict on

tobacco, it becomes immediately viewed by the public as “bad” and increasingly

becomes an image that no one wants to be associated with - especially when trying to

make a profit (Workman, 1997). Many hotels and restaurant across the country have on

their own chosen to go “smoke free” through promotional discounts provided by their

insurance companies, as well as a widespread amount of states going as far as passing

clean indoor air laws that require public areas to be “smoke free” (Mehall, 2002)

Supporting a legislation that would give the Food & Drug Administration (FDA)

full authority to regulate the manufacture, distribution, sale, labeling, advertising and

promotion of firearm products to protect the public safety - especially the elimination of

advertising, marketing, or availability of firearm products for children - can help make

miraculous changes of reducing the attractiveness of firearms in the hands of youth, and

even reduce the amount of school shootings overtime. Like tobacco, the FDA should not

ban marketing firearm products to adults who choose to use them. Such forceful laws

have helped save many lives of have-been tobacco users, and this is because habits we

develop into adulthood is usually the result of being exposed to them as youths (e.g. most

smokers start as adolescents) (Workman, 1997). Similarly, most gun owners today have

had more exposures to a firearm growing up through the many mechanisms of firearm

marketing mentioned. Gun marketers have been negligent in marketing its handguns to

the general public which includes youth (LaFollette, 2000). The firearms that are being

marketed to the general public [including children] are firearms that fail to disclose the

dangers inherent in firearms use and from misuse, assuming that its consumers already

know how to operate these devices (LaFollette, 2000). What is more ridiculous, a child’s

teddy bear is subject to more safety regulations than handguns that kill children

(Knickerbocker, 4). Furthermore, such radicalism in policy reform has caused a large

dent in declining the amount of tobacco users among adolescents.

It could be time for radical change similarly seen toward in tobacco industry.

Federal gun-control efforts should mandate the media and youth hunting groups for

checks on the marketing of firearms toward youth. It would take an intellectual jujitsu to
explain why the First Amendment is worthy of improvement (having flag burning

severed from free speech), but the Second Amendment remain questionably unrevised -

in spite of recent youth-related firearm fatalities. Waiting periods do not solve the larger

problem of too many unstable individuals shooting first and then asking questions later

<insert Dick Cheney reference here>. There have been lots of other causes that went from

the radical to the routine. Not only a decade ago did the idea of a civil union for gay

couples seemed to be a laughable matter. However, times have changed, and the issue of

civil unions for gays have become the bipartisan middle-ground position for both parties

<insert Dick Cheney reference here>.

II.

Gun-control and other safety orientated advocacy groups have noble intentions in

limiting firearm marketing, however, most of their arguments could possibly be the result

of overblown rhetoric. The marketing of firearms has 13 justifications for this belief. (1)

It is difficult to prove that simply marketing firearms is an illegal action (Belluck, 13).

According to legal experts, having a certain ban or legislation enacted that limits firearms

from marketing would ply uncharted territory, suggesting violations of free-speech

gauranteed in the First Amendment. It would also be unlikey because of interstate

commerce laws that prevent one jurisdiction from telling another what to do (Belluck,

13). (2) Among the business ethics seen in their retailers, the firearm marketing industry

is also proud to point out their recent marketing of safety locks on guns. The National

Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) routinely hosts a trigger lock giveaway in Fairfax

each year to promote the availability of safer options (Murphy, 2003). (3) The firearm

marketing industry argues that gun-owning homes have dropped 20 percent in accidental
deaths since the 1970’s; therefore the accusation that firearm marketing has intensified

does not hold valid (Wheeler, 2001). Moreover, the safety programs for youth such as

those offered by NRA credit themselves for this drop (Glick & Sugarmann, 1997). (4)

Marketing musicians that rap about killing cops and beating women are among the most

popular music listened to by youth, particularly Eminem, and it seems government

seldom does anything to stop the marketing of such entertainment, which has much affect

on a minor’s choice to harm than does organizations like NRA (Wheeler, 2001). Instead

of stopping these musicians’ message to reach children, we lavish them with money,

fame, and awards. (5) The firearm marketing industry also argues that what they market

does not kill people; people kill people (Murphy, 2003). (6) Another important argument

of the firearm marketing industry is their defiance of legal limitations often threatened by

the VPC. They argue that if we put too much restraints on the gun industry’s business

practices, or if we outlaw the marketing and sales of guns, only outlaws will have guns

(accessed through black markets, stealing, etc.) (Wheeler, 2001). (7) The firearm

marketing industry does not take blame to the fact America has the highest rates of gun

deaths in the world. They argue that most gun owners are typically in the bottom range

of economical wealth, resulting in more crimes in the least privileged neighborhoods.

This is due to the disparity of income and wealth, where America displays the greatest

disparity of incomes between the top and bottom 10 percents of the population (Wheeler,

2001). These homicides are occurring from our country’s severe but ineffective drug

laws, which has created a violence-regulated industry (Wheeler, 2001). (8) Saying that

we live in a culture that glorifies too much violence in general, and implying a reform for

such a culture - would be implicit that classic stories such as Hansel and Gretel should be
discontinued since the story carries themes of violence, and books by Mark Twain should

be banned from schools since his stories also feature much offensive and violent content

containing firearms (Wheeler, 2001). However, stories like Hansel and Gretel may be

violent, but still carry important valuable lessons passed on to children - so much to the

point that any “violence” in the story becomes irrelevant. Pieces by Mark Twain and

other great American authors are studied closely because of the saturation of intellect

carried in the writing for youth to learn from, even when containing violent content that

feature firearms. (9) Most notably, firearm marketing industry also advocates the main

argument of a gun owner: the right to gun ownership is implied in the Second

Amendment, and trying to stop the marketing and sales of the firearm industry is also

breaking the fundamental right of noninterference (Murphy, 2003). Within this right also

comes the one’s right to self-defense, which in turn cuts crimes. (10) Marketing firearms

directly to children is not the case; the effectiveness of advertising firearms through

public is unseen since U.S. firearm manufacturing companies are privately held (Saylor,

Vittes, & Sorenson, 421). The only kind of direct marketing a firearm manufacturer can

do is through consumer gun magazines, which aim toward readers over 25 years of age

(Saylor, Vittes, & Sorenson, 421). Of these, the most reoccurring theme of these ads

were for lifestyle and self-protection; the only attributes of the gun “glorified” in these

ads were the technological advancements noted (Saylor, Vittes, & Sorenson, 421). (11)

If higher authority like government should help legislate barring the marketing of

firearms to children (even through means of media and entertainment), this very idea that

government understands the intentions behind every marketing decision is slippery. We

must let business be free to promote its products in the most profitable way - unless,
however, we are prepared to introduce a totalitarian state that has the power to approve

and disapprove each cultural message that hits us. In a free society, it is the job of parents

(not politicians or regulators) to be in charge of what influences their child (Dicks, 2007).

Further, it would also be hypocritical to have such an expectation when considering the

government’s own advertisements to join the military. The ads feature young men and

women surrounded by firearms and otherwise operating weapons of mass destruction

(Dicks, 2007). (12) It is also absurd to assume that the marketing plans of ad agencies

always work. While marketing can be a great way in getting the word out, deterministic

relationships between promotion and sales do not always prove to exist in human affairs

(Dicks, 2007). (13) The firearm marketing industry is actually not creating an artificial

demand for its products, but rather catering to an existential demand (Dicks, 2007).

With the suggestions of Report I, it is untrue to compare firearm with tobacco,

and further apply similar marketing restrictions seen in tobacco to the marketing of

firearms. It would be just like saying McDonald’s shouldn’t be allowed to market to fat

people, or Victoria’s Secret to sell to promiscuous women, or Anhueser-Busch to sell to

drunks, or Dell shouldn’t be allowed to sell laptops to workaholics, or Ebay to grant

“one-click” ordering to chocoholics (Dicks, 2007). As the list of analogies grows

endless, it proves the suggestions in Report I to be unreasonable.

III.

According to the Narrow View of Milton Friedman, we should not try and divert

corporations from making profits, which includes minimizing marketing efforts as

prescribed by Report I. Allowing the firearm industry to market is crucial since

corporations that make profit helps keep our economy efficient. So long the marketing of
firearms is socially responsible in making profit within the rules of the game - it has not

broken any explicit laws. Further, because the firearm industry as well as Hollywood are

private enterprises, they shouldn’t be forced or expected to take on public responsibilities

that would properly belong to the government. The role of the entertainment, media, and

firearm industries are solely economic and should not be expected to play “moral agents.”

However, on the flipside, because any profitable entity like the aforementioned

have a strong appetite for profit, the government should be allowed to step in and regulate

anything gone out of line to preserve the well-being of the general public. It is

reasonable to still expect corporations to have a moral agency because of their great

social and economic powers. The entertainment, media, and firearm marketing industries

are governed by an “implicit” social contract that requires them to operate in ways that

benefit society. This means that these marketers must take responsibility for unintended

side effects of externalities (accidental shootings, toy gun replicas, school shootings);

these marketers need to weigh out the full social cost of their outcomes, and obviously

have not done so. When entertainment, media, and firearm marketers make rational moral

decisions - such as deciding if a message containing firearms are sent through youth

audiences (which in turn influences youth action and behavior), it is not unreasonable that

corporations should be held blameworthy for such negative outcomes to some extent.

Moreover, such consequential-based arguments are made since the marketing industry is

not acting in ways that promotes the best interest (well-being) of everyone in society.

The defense of the marketing industry is breaking a categorical imperative. Marketing

firearms, particularly to children, is promoting gun sales, which results suggested it

causes great amounts of deaths. Killing is breaking this categorical imperative, since
marketing firearms is ultimately minimizing such universal laws. The solutions sought

by anti-gun activists toward the marketing industry are based upon Utilitarian standards

as an armchair argument. It is important to thoughtfully take the entire society into

consideration that can be affected by the firearm industry’s actions. Furthermore,

individuals working in these particular areas of marketing must not realize what it’s like

to lose a loved one, and certainly it has never happened to any of them yet [in the result

of a firearm] – otherwise they would surely leave their irresponsible careers. None of

them would want a close loved one killed as a result of a firearm – which came into the

hands of one as a result of firearm marketing messages. If this is the case, marketing

firearms is also breaking the grounds that such universal acceptability is built upon. The

act of marketing firearms fails the dignity test as well. The market firearms is using

people’s lives as a further end to attain their means – profit. No amount of money is

equal to the amount of lives sacrificed as a result of their marketing strategies. Doing so

would be destroying the human dignity of consumers.

* * * * * * *

An in-depth analysis of the opposing views leads to a conclusion that offers no

significant evidence to prove that firearm manufacturers themselves have marketed

directly toward children - refuting the initial held belief. However, limits should be

placed on the marketing schemes of the entertainment industry and media when targeting

children. As mentioned in Report III, violent language, behavior, and imagery expressed

through children’s toys, video games, movies and music that are marketed toward

children should be a job of the government to regulate because the industry’s ultimate
interest is profitability, making marketers more susceptible in blurring the moral lines.

That being said, the marketers of the entertainment and media groups should be more

careful in what they market to children when knowing they have a strong influence on the

general public. After all, with all the profits these industries rake in as a result of their

marketing schemes, they should thank their consumers by providing them entertainment

that carries positive moral influences for children.

Cited Sources

BBC News. http://news.bbc.co.uk. “Timeline: U.S. School Shootings.” United Kingdom, 2007.

Farrell, Scott. “The World’s Most Dangerous Video Game.” Guns Magazine. v.83, issue 4.
Cleveland: 2001.

Glick, Susan; Sugarmann, Josh. “Joe Camel with Feathers. How the NRA with Gun and
Tobacco Industry Dollars Uses Its Eddie Eagle Program To Market Guns to Kids.”
Evaluative Reports. No. ED415295. Washington, DC: Violence Policy Center
Press, 1997.

Indianapolis Star. www.IndyStar.com. “Timeline of Incidents: School Violence Around The

World.” Indianapolis: 2006.

Kleining, John. “Gun Control.” Criminal Justice Ethics. v. 20, Issue 1. New York: 2001.

Knickerbocker, Brad. “Child-Safety Activists Target American Gunmakers.”

Christian Science Monitor. Issue April 28, 1998. Boston: The Christian Science
Publishing Society, 1998.

LaFollette, Hugh. “Gun Control.” Ethics. v.110, No. 2. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 2000.

Little, Ken. “’An Accident Waiting to Happen’; Police Warn of Dangers of Toy or Replica
Weapons.” Star News. Issue October 11, 2006. Wilmington: Star-News Inc, 2006.

Mehall, Karen. “The Eagle Has Landed.” American Rifleman. v. 12, Issue 9.
Jacksonville: 2002.
Murphy, Rod; Shade, Gary A. “Ethics of Suing the Firearm Industry.” Cardinal Stritch University
Graduate Student Publications. Arlington: University Press, 2003.
National Rifle Association. www.NRA.org. “NRA Gun Safety Rules.” Fairfax: 2007.

----. www.NRA.org. “Parents’ Guide to Gun Safety.” Fairfax: 2007.

----. www.NRA.org. “Refuse To Be a Victim.” Fairfax: 2007.

Saylor, A. Elizabeth; Vittes, A. Katherine; Sorenson, B. Susan. “Firearm Advertising: Product

Depiction in Consumer Gun Magazines.” Evaluation Review. v. 28, No. 5.
Los Angeles: Sage Publications, 2004.

Seligman, Naomi. “National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) Gun ‘Safety’

Gesture Latest Example of Firearm Industry Hypocrisy.” www.VPC.org.
Washington, DC: Violence Policy Center, 2000.

----. “About the Violence Policy Center.” www.VPC.org. Washington, DC: Violence Policy
Center, 2006

----. “Dallas Gun Store Opens ‘Kids Corner’.” www.VPC.org. Washington, DC: Violence Policy
Center, 2006.

Sugarmann, Josh. National Rifle Association: Money, Firepower & Fear. Washington DC:
National Press Books, 1992.

Tait, Gordon. “Parents Warned Over Fake Gun Threat to Children.” Daily Mail. London:
Associated Newspapers Ltd, 2006.

Wheeler III, Samuel C. “Gun Violence and Fundamental Rights.” Criminal Justice Ethics.
v. 20, Issue 1. New York: 2001.

Workman, Dave. “Industry’s NRA endowments = ‘Foundation for the Future’.”

Fishing & Hunting News. v. 42, issue 1. Boulder: 1997.

Interview Provided Through:

Dicks, Stan. Store Manager & firearm industry advocate; Top Gun Shooting Sports.
St. Charles, MO: 2007.