[andrewflnr]

You know, I actually hadn't, but they were nothing I didn't expect. Of course they were lying. Lots of people without NPD lie. They were in a hole, and they thought digging was their best way out. Playing on fears of gun-grabbing is a plausible if clumsy angle to take. If their design had been less borked, they might even have gotten away with it. That's why lots of unethical but otherwise grounded PR types have historically okay'd this kind of thing.

You can debate whether they're still "in their right mind" by your preferred definition, but it's increasingly preposterous to say their behavior is evidence of an executive with NPD. This is just not that special, dude. People are just like this.

[lazide]

Uh huh, sure. Definitely nothing particularly spectacular here at all.

How many gun companies have had this level of scandal again? The only one I can think of is Taurus in the 80’s.

Doesn’t sound normal at all, actually.

What really amuses me about these kinds of conversations is how invested people are in insisting that when it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, is at the pond with the ducks, and looks like a duck - it totally isn’t a duck, because… I don’t know. They don’t like ducks? Or ducks are boring?

[andrewflnr]

Oh, it's pretty spectacular. Just not evidence for NPD. That was your thesis, right, this very specific clinical diagnosis? Do you still remember that? You desperately want to believe this bird you found at the lake is a rare, special species of duck, but it's just a mallard.

[lazide]

And pray tell, what would count as evidence?

[andrewflnr]

> you best be ready to cite the clinical definition.

And not the vibes-only version you tried in your first reply. Notably, said clinical definition is not applicable to a company as a whole.

[lazide]

sure dude.