How much responsibility falls on the NRA?

[Mouricia Allen]

Yes, you know the dangers, you push people to get guns, even tell them it's okay to just whip it out as you feel threatened, that is a recipe for disaster!

[kfwilson6]

In the specific situation presented in Final Notice, the NRA definitely had a good deal of responsibility. Their marketing tactics were to target the senior citizen group with no regard to whether or not that was a good target audience. What I mean by good is, a group of people who could use their product competently and would choose to use it morally. They wanted seniors to be able to obtain a firearm regardless of their mental capacity.

This situation makes me think of the anti-tobacco commercials that are railing against cigarette manufacturers for targeting lower income audiences. It is a sellers ethical duty to know the capabilities of his market and not to target people in the hopes of taking advantage of them. Is it right for a car repair shop to charge me $500 because I don't know what the repair should cost and charge a middle aged man $200 because they suspect he probably knows $500 is a rip off? Absolutely not! Manufacturer's should have a responsibility to everyone, especially their consumers. I realize this is all very idealistic but if we are talking about what SHOULD be, this is it.

Profit overtook the safety of the American people. The NRA was largely at fault. I think the conclusion says it all.

[LivreAmour217]

The NRA might have some culpability in the problems. However, they were quite demonized in the book to extreme. I don't think they have that much political clout as was portrayed.

I agree whole-heartedly. I thought that the NRA's portrayal in this book was way over the top. They may bear some responsibility, but there are many, many other factors that contribute to mass shootings.

[KasieMiehlke]

In my opinion, no organization or regulating body should be taken into accountability. As I have been asserting, for any shooting to take place, the individual involved must be predisposed to do the act. We have been in proximity to knives on the table, knives in the kitchen, then why is it that we did not stab anybody yet? Or why didn't the soldiers who live with guns all their lives did not go on a shooting rampage just because they have guns?

I agree with you. Coming from an avid hunting family, I have been around guns alll my life. I have also been taught proper gun safety and ownership. In the case of shootings I don't believe that the NRA should be held responsible, but I also don't think they should use it for their advatage. There, in my opinion, is no one individual or organization that can be held responsible for shootings.

[cozark38]

Growing up in Montana, we had guns galore you might say. We hunted and fed our family out of necessity with them. I learned to shoot when I was 8 years old under strict supervision. Learning to shoot was natural. It was not really what we were learning though. We were learning respect for a weapon that kills. When I was 3, I knew better than to touch a firearm. Only so much can be taught at home and now we fight against the internet making it harder for parents. Do I think it is necessary to make and own guns like an AR-15? No. Do I think I have the right to tell another he should not own them either? No. I am a gun owner. I would register, be vetted, and I think that is great. The problem is, as mentioned previously here a bit, those vetted and given the green light for a gun will not prevent those that really want them from getting them and doing harm.

Guns don't kill people. The wrong people with guns are deadly. When people take drugs it can be deadly. I never enjoyed killing and no longer hunt. I was a crack shot with a pistol at one time. I liked to compete with myself, but only on targets. I did hunt for food, but never enjoyed it and never shot any animal just for sport. I still fish occasionally but catch and release usually. I prefer to observe life. I do understand both sides.

I don't hold the NRA responsible. Hostess is not held responsible for contributing to obesity, which is rampant here in the US. Cigarette companies are not responsible for their killing sticks. Stinging nettles may sting, but prepared properly they can be excellent to eat. It's all about education, research, and being open-minded. Do I think they should be morally held accountable? Sure, but I lack the credentials G.O.D. so I cannot judge them, but I can judge the act and keep up discussions like these to make a difference.

Gun owners, or the people that possess them, are responsible for their actions. I like the calm but differing opinions here. This is what is needed to try and resolve the issue we have currently. I appreciate the respect given here.

[mnmueller]

I think the issue of accountability is a tricky one. I will stick with only the book, since that is the topic. Please bear in mind that while I read most of the book, I did not finish it.

What I read of the NRA's tactics in the book were deplorable. They were actively preying on a certain group of people, making them feel more powerless so that they could then offer them an attractively priced item to give them a false sense of having regained that power. They also made the feel unsafe, making it seem like people around them were a danger to them and only they could protect themselves. If this were a riot, they would be the ones who started the fight and provided a way to get the weapons. In that sense they are morally responsible.

Legally, though, there isn't a way to hold them accountable. They did not give anyone anything, merely made it possible for the items to be purchased. While they did use tactics to influence customers, in the end they didn't force the issue. No one had to purchase those guns and once purchased, there is no proof that the NRA influenced what they did with them. In fact, the NRA mostly cares that the guns get sold and they can point out the numbers as support for their own way of thinking. What happens afterward only counts if it can be used to defend their beliefs.

This whole subplot was a sore point for me in the book. It felt wrong and killed any desire I had to finish the book.

[VictoriaMcMillen]

I am very much contemplating that while reading the book. McDonald's has to put "HOT" on coffee yet in some cases, anyone can get a gun. Cars kill people, yet we have to go through steps and tests to get a licence to drive one. Then there is insurance that you have to pay for in case someone gets hurt because of your driving. The state and your insurance keep track of your driving mistakes to raise your rates or revoke your licence. I believe their ethics and ways of sale are where the responsibility lies. They could use more discretion in how and who they sell to, but I do understand the difficulty in doing so without stepping on the Second Amendment. The right to bear arms however does not mean throwing a gun in every hand you can to make a buck. Creating and then marketing off of the fear of people to make even more money is even more inciting of an indictment demanding responsibility be accepted by them. A big problem in this world across many consumer items, not just guns. Not to mention if some mental illnesses even allow for the capacity for a person to understand what they are purchasing or using, or the permanency of the bullet when fired...

[Van F]

Growing up in Montana, we had guns galore you might say. We hunted and fed our family out of necessity with them. I learned to shoot when I was 8 years old under strict supervision. Learning to shoot was natural. It was not really what we were learning though. We were learning respect for a weapon that kills. When I was 3, I knew better than to touch a firearm. Only so much can be taught at home and now we fight against the internet making it harder for parents. Do I think it is necessary to make and own guns like an AR-15? No. Do I think I have the right to tell another he should not own them either? No. I am a gun owner. I would register, be vetted, and I think that is great. The problem is, as mentioned previously here a bit, those vetted and given the green light for a gun will not prevent those that really want them from getting them and doing harm.

Guns don't kill people. The wrong people with guns are deadly. When people take drugs it can be deadly. I never enjoyed killing and no longer hunt. I was a crack shot with a pistol at one time. I liked to compete with myself, but only on targets. I did hunt for food, but never enjoyed it and never shot any animal just for sport. I still fish occasionally but catch and release usually. I prefer to observe life. I do understand both sides.

I don't hold the NRA responsible. Hostess is not held responsible for contributing to obesity, which is rampant here in the US. Cigarette companies are not responsible for their killing sticks. Stinging nettles may sting, but prepared properly they can be excellent to eat. It's all about education, research, and being open-minded. Do I think they should be morally held accountable? Sure, but I lack the credentials G.O.D. so I cannot judge them, but I can judge the act and keep up discussions like these to make a difference.

Gun owners, or the people that possess them, are responsible for their actions. I like the calm but differing opinions here. This is what is needed to try and resolve the issue we have currently. I appreciate the respect given here.

[I'm a gun owner, too, but a lousy shot. I'm pretty sure I've heard ducks laughing! Really enjoyed your comments as they come from someone who understands about the responsibility that goes along with gun ownership. It's far too easy for the wrong people to get the wrong guns and until we make much better efforts to stop that from happening, I'm for keeping AR-15s on Army base shooting ranges. They probably have cooler targets than drink cans, bottle or fruit. ]

[Steph K]

The NRA might have some culpability in the problems. However, they were quite demonized in the book to extreme. I don't think they have that much political clout as was portrayed.

I would disagree. In much of the country, the NRA is hugely powerful. They spend millions on lobbying and campaign financing. If you look at who votes against gun control bills, they typically have received huge amounts from the NRA. Gun control is a hot button issue that people in red states are zealous about. I live in Missouri. Barring St. Louis or Kansas City, no one is getting in office without an "A" rating from the NRA. Red state politicians have to cater to the second amendment folks to get and stay in office. Wavering on that position is political suicide. I've seen campaign ads funded by the NRA, and also attack ads. They can be vicious.

[Van F]

Check out a song video I just posted on YouTube called Crazy Eddie Got A Gun. It’s full of stats including how much the NRA has funded politicians who support their agenda. The song could also be called Trudi’s Song if you’ve read Final Notice.

[Quithilion]

The NRA are doing what they are supposed to do. Sell guns, to whomever they can.

The responsibility rest either with the government for allowing the NRA to sell to the wrong people or with the people who bought the guns. After all they chose to buy them.

I come from a country that doesn't allow us to own guns and we have no such problems. So I'll have a final notice watch if they need testers.

[kthompson]

The NRA itself is not an issue; the issue presents itself when the NRA is bullying representatives in Congress and influencing policy decisions. An organization like the NRA should not have that much power over our legislature. Now they've taken to threatening teenagers protesting for more gun control laws. Our bipartisan government should not be a puppet of a gun lobbying group.

[Samy Lax]

I think VitalTech and NRA share joint responsibility. Should VitalTech have given the Final Notice despite knowing the facts? Shouldn't the NRA have had a rethink about their massive push for guns? NO and YES.

[CaitlynLynch]

THe NRA has so many clear conflicts of interest, it's incomprehensible to me how they are viewed as any sort of authority. Certainly you cannot compare them with the FDA, a government agency which exists specifically to protect the public AGAINST Big Pharma having free rein to distribute untested drugs!

[lavellan]

I think the NRA has some responsibility. Even though they didn’t tell people to kill others, they pushed their products onto them. Additionally, the NRA pays politicians to support legislation that advances their interests. This prevents needed reforms from being passed.