[hnlmorg]

And culture is driven by marketing. Which comes right back to the point I was making.

If gun culture was so fundamental to peoples beliefs then the NRA wouldn’t need to spend as much on lobbying as they do. The entire reason that culture hasn’t changed in the last hundred years is because of marketing, not in spite of it.

[diogenes4]

> And culture is driven by marketing.

Sure but you haven't shown how advertising drives specifically gun culture. Someone's eighteenth gun? Sure, but that's a rounding error in terms of gun ownership.

> if gun culture was so fundamental to peoples beliefs then the NRA wouldn’t need to spend as much on lobbying as they do.

You're conflating marketing a product to a market and bribing politicians to not restrict the sale of guns. There isn't any overlap.

[hnlmorg]

> You're conflating marketing a product to a market and bribing politicians to not restrict the sale of guns. There isn't any overlap

I disagree. In the case of gun ownership, lobbying creates the market, and the more generalised marketing helps to grow it. They're two tines of the same pitchfork.

Lobbying is, after all, just highly focused marketing at specific demographics (politicians) and in often underhanded ways.

[diogenes4]

> They're two tines of the same pitchfork.

If we're discussing the market, there's several billion other tines you missed.

[hnlmorg]

I was illustrating a point with an example, not documenting an exhaustive list of the NRAs expenditure. And the fact that you're picking meta-arguments rather than refuting my point head-on, speaks volumes.

Culture is driven by marketing.