I would not get too upset about this. These types of bills come up every congressional session and every congressional session they die in committee or get .. uh.. well.. shot down. :D.

Yep, the supreme court will shoot it down, not to mention bad timing with the election coming up. The fact is too many Dems are for gun rights, well, might be against them, but for them to get voted in.

I will bet a scooby snack that this gets no where near the Supreme Court.

I doubt it will get out of committee. :yep:

So if there were commercials for buggy whips on TV, it would become a viable product again? Sorry, doesn't work that way. Demand creates supply.

When was the last time anyone saw an advertisement for a gun on TV/Radio?

You rarely see advertisements in magazines for guns and than only in specialized gun magazines.

Oh I was just sidetracking the whole thread by taking issue with one of Sky's points about U.S. media corrupting the rest of the world. Never mind me. :salute:

No worries, I believe we are in agreement here. :up:

eeew eeew pick me, here in florida they, had an ad for the Henry rifle on channel 9 Orlando.

I've seen a couple gun commercials too, some repeating rifle or something.

Personally don't give a crap about guns.

What about snake oil? ;)
I just watched half an hour of commercial tv - which happens seldom enough in my private time, so I announce it. I asked myself the whole time while watching advertisements: It can't be real what kind of dumb, unnessessary stuff those folks want to sell..
Demand and supply definitely also works the other way around - yes, in its boundaries, everybody needs to drink, but the advertisement of a special beverage creates demand for this.

Then there is something you guys may not know about U.S. tv series and movies here. When the American studios sell their broadcast licenses, they usually sell it in bundles. They combine the pearls, some good stuff and lots of garbage together.
This is one of the reasons why there are so many american crap shows and films shown on tv here. This goes for Germany, but I am sure the studios have the same policy in other European countries.

An on-topic question:
What is the supposed sense of banning "high capacity" magazines? All I know is that CA and NY already have the 10 bullet cutoff. Afaik it was also the law when "assault weapons" were banned, though old magazines were still legal to posess, unlike the proposal now.
I don't really see any convincing argument for this. Do people think that somebody who goes on a killing spree would stop and think it all over when changing a magazine? :hmmm:

Demand in economics is defined as the desire for a product, the willingness to purchase a product, and the ability to pay for it. Advertising in and of itself does doesn't create "demand" in the economic sense that wasn't already there - it raises awareness. The only people who are going to purchase your product after seeing your ad are the ones who would have already been willing to purchase such a product in the first place. Think about how many new foods and drinks that marketers come up with that fail - colored ketchup, spaghetti and pizza at McDonalds, the Ford Edsel. Despite all the advertising that these companies did for these products, they couldn't get over the fact that there was no organic demand for them. Look at ads for drugs for diabetes, or dry eyes, or arthritis, or whatever. Nobody who doesn't already suffer from one of those ailments is going to purchase your drug no matter how much advertising you do, i.e. they don't have a built in demand for it. Advertising only creates awareness, not organic demand.

It supposedly limits the lethality of a weapon. If I had a 20 round magazine, I may carry one or two extras. If I had a 8 round magazine, I may carry that same one or two extra. Lower capacity, fewer bullets.

I myself see no use for assualt weapons, although I own a few, they sit in the closet and use to target shoot with them, so I understand some like that. The problem is those few crimes are committed with such. The clip issue is also silly, person could just carry two guns.

You could ban such weapons and you would see no change in gun violence, none at all.

The reason many of us moderates on guns don't want any laws changed to any degree, because we know the liberals seek to outlaw all guns, so why give an inch.

You have a point with those stated examples - though I personally liked green ketchup ;)
However the drug examples also support the theory that advertisement can create artificial demand. It is quite astonishing for Europeans to see how aggressively drugs are advertised in th US - hard on the border of false promises, thus snake oil. One can argue that health is a demand that every human has, but it surely doesn't get satisfied by placebos or unnessesary diet supplements. Drugs are also not only used for treatment, but also for prevention.

:hmmm: If someone has the strong desire to off as many people as possible, I can't think that carrying some extra pounds of low capacity magazines would stop him. On the other hand, if someone has a gun for defense purposes, one would like to have as many rounds as possible, regarding the stress factor of a situation like this.

Even here in Europe, the NRA is known for not beeing shy to massively lobbying weapon business interests, the NRA is a synonym for business lobbying. It gets listed with these white spendings for pro gun advertising in 2010:

Total Lobbying Expenditures: $2,650,000
Subtotal for Parent National Rifle Assn: $2,250,000
Subtotal for Subsidiary NRA Institute for Legislative Action: $400,000

Even more valuable is the NRA connections to politial representatives whose voice may be heared and whose votes do count. The lobbying and advertising payments done by NRA members who stay unknown and unnoted, is not really known, but is estimated to be a factor of the above. Lobby investements payed by NRA sister organisations and affiliates, are also not included.

Beside this, mookie, daily TV will show you examples of commercial adverts introducing new products that before nobody ever has needed and nobody ever has missed, according agencies have the explicit order for which they get payed to artifically create the demand - by in principel nothing else but brainwashing. Whirer than white, cleaner than clean better than best. 3 blades razors.4 blade razors. 5 blade razors. Ha! At university I had to do 3 mandatory semesters in employement and market psychology, and we were told by the books that advertising business has two major fields it cares for: to either ensure brand-loyalty of consumers and prevent them from changing to the products of another company, or to create artifical demand for a new product that nobody knows, nobody cared for, and has not missed. The rbainwashing concept targets at making people think that they cannot live without this item any longer and that they simply MUST haved it.

The other way to create demand artifically, wich is being done especially in the consumer electronics and hopusehold machinery segments, is to artifically shorten the durability and lifespan of lets say washing machines. This can be done by either using materials with inbuilt failure features (using construction or material selection to ensure that after some years it breaks), or by stropping to produce needed spareparts. The market for cionsumer electronics in the West was saturated in the fist half of the 80s, after WWII finally almost every household was equipped with the basic machinery you use to find in modern households. The demand declined, threatening industry profits. What happoened? You can read from the statistics, that since then the longevity of consumer electrnics like TVs and washing machines has reduced by roughly one third until today.

Live with it, mookie. Our system depends on constant manipulation of people'S behavior, and precise misinformation of people's thinking.

But we must not like it! ;) The internet gives us the option to trade independent information around the globe in no time. That's why I think it is of paramount importance that commercial interests get stopped from taking command of the internet, and regulation get minimised and prevented as well.

One thing people should understand. Nio business company spends a single dollar on advertising for something new if it does not get a profit return from that that is solid and increases the total sum on it'S banking account. The simply fact that comapnies spend hilarious sums for commercial advetising and lobbying in politics is evidence that it works by the inention, and more than compensates for the initial investement into adverts and lobbying. Else they would save the money and don'T waste it. Prestige alone does not pay their bills, and does not make their stocks booming.