Research archive

A Failure to Communicate

by Robert T. Delfay, President & CEO, National Shooting Sports Foundation
Remarks before The Center on Crime, Communities and Culture
The Open Society Institute, New York, NY
15 July 1999

I very much appreciate the opportunity to offer a view of the firearms industry that is too rarely presented. I accepted your invitation because I was confident that my message would receive a fair and open-minded audience. I maintain that confidence at this moment, but I must confess, I do feel very much like the visiting team.

In recent months, I have come to believe that the industry I represent has been guilty of a monumental failure to communicate. We have failed to communicate properly, outside the walls of our own offices, our commitment to safety, quality and responsibility.

An example: I recently had the opportunity to meet face-to-face with one of the mayors who has filed suit against our industry. As our scheduled half-hour meeting grew into a 90-minute discussion, I became convinced that if we had met several months earlierÑand if that mayor had received a fair and honest representation on the firearms industry's commitment to safety, crime reduction and responsibilityÑthat his lawsuit might never have been filed.

That meeting and numerous discussions since have cemented my notion that lack of communication on our part is a primary reason the firearms debate has become so polarized.

My job, for the past 29 years and nine months, has been to promote a better public understanding of the shooting sports.

Some might say I have failed miserably in that effort. And there are many days that I would agree.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation represents the manufacturers of the sporting firearms and ammunition that are used each year by nearly 30 million responsible Americans who participate in recreational shooting sports.

We also represent, however, the very same manufacturers when their products are used illegally or irresponsibly in highly visible, socially abhorrent and tragic ways. This is what makes my job tough, my industry controversial and my hair gray.

By rights, 99.998% of my comments should relate to the use of firearms and ammunition by trap and skeet shooters, hunters, and rifle and pistol target shooters, because thats how our products are used virtually all of the time. However, I know I am expected to dig deeper than that and I will.

This presentation will address issues such as alleged irresponsible marketing and lack of government regulation. I will also provide our perspective on current issues such as the recent municipal lawsuits against our industry, our positions on pending legislative proposals, and the questions of smart gun technology.

And so, as I leave that introduction behind and segue into the heart of my message, let me emphasize as strongly as possible that virtually all of the controversy that surrounds our industry stems from the unintended, and largely criminal, use of our products. No manufacturer makes its handgun, rifle or shotgun-or its ammunition-intending that it will be used in a crime, a suicide or an accident.

Its the unintended usethe criminal, irresponsible, careless and anti-social useÑthat concerns you and challenges me. That may sound obvious, but it is painfully clear to me that the distinction is too often lost.

Industry Overview
Let me provide a brief overview of our industry. The sporting firearms and ammunition industry in America is not large. Sales at the manufacturer level are barely $1.5 billion. There are single companies in our nation that are 100 times larger than our entire industry. Companies ranging from Toys R Us to Stanley Tools are many times larger than our entire industry.

Sales break down roughly to 1/3 from handguns, 1/3 from rifles and shotguns and 1/3 from ammunition. Those percentages vary, sometimes significantly, from year to year, but, overall, thats an accurate breakdown.

Further, based on a recent survey of our industry, sales are attributable nearly 60% to hunting, 24% to target shooting and 15% to self-protection.

On Marketing Guns to Kids
A few years back, I was watching while NSSFs director of marketing was being interviewed by a television reporter. The first question, asked in a rather pointed tone, was, So, just what do you market?

His reply, quite simply, was, our sports.

Now, frankly, if we represented the tennis, golf, skiing or other recreation-based industry, no reporter would have thought to ask the same question.

But unfortunately, in recent years, a certain disconnect has occurred between our products and their intended sporting use. They are identified more with their unintended criminal use.

As a result, some people now ask, Why own a gun? For many millions of Americans, the answer is exactly the same as to why they might own a set of golf clubs, a pair of skis or a tennis racquet. It's sports equipment.

Anti-gun activists have, nonetheless, mounted a campaign against our industry based on the charge that we are now trying to sell guns to women and children. The inference, is that we are trying to somehow con unsuspecting customers into purchasing products that are inappropriate, harmful or that promote anti-social behavior.

This is an untrue, irrational and unfair accusation.

Not only do we see nothing wrong with promoting the recreational uses of our products, we see a lot thats right. Marksmanship programs not only help young people learn a new skill, they also teach important lessons in safety, personal responsibility and good sportsmanship. And perhaps most important they involve time spent with family and other responsible adults.

Women and Guns
What about women and guns? A nationwide trend in recent years has seen more and more women getting involved in sports and recreation of all kinds, from hockey to rock climbing.

Have we tried to promote this trend? We have. As weve seen an increasing number of women show up at the range, weve worked to remove barriers to womens participation in our sports and also to sponsor introductory learning opportunities precisely the same strategy the golf and tennis industries have employed.

Now all that having been said, we know there are always going to be people who see something sinister in encouraging womens participation in the shooting sports. To those people, Ill say, please consider this:

If our efforts to welcome women into the shooting sports is somehow bad because it might result in an increase in the violent use of firearms by women, then that new violent use should show up in crime statistics. It does not. Since 1986, the rate of women committing homicides has dropped by nearly 25%, and since 1976 it has dropped by more than 50% from 3.1 to 1.5 per 100,000. Womens participation in shooting sports like anyones participation in shooting sports does not lead to crime. I might even suggest the reverse is true.

A Commitment to Safety
Next I would like to comment on firearms safety both in terms of industry-supported safety programs and also safety devices, recognizing that the latter has been very much in the news of late.

Until now, the firearms industry has worked hard to educate the segment of the population it is most in touch withÑgun owners and users. We have been markedly successful. I know you expect me to say that, but its true. Over the past 20 years, firearms safety education programs sponsored by industry, the National Rifle Association and others have reduced the number of accidental firearms fatalities in the home by 50%-from 1,400 in 1974 to 700 in 1995. That 1995 total, according to the National Safety Council, was the lowest since 1903. Over the past 15 years, fatal hunting accidents have declined from 400 to less than 90. These are encouraging statistics, but more can be done and will be done.

Recently, our industry launched a major new effort to bring our safety message to children and adults who are not familiar with guns, but who may encounter them in their homes and in the homes of others.

Entitled Project HomeSafe, this partnership effort will enlist the support of government officials, law enforcement, educators and media in bringing a safety message and safety materials, including locking devices, to our nations major metropolitan areas. We have committed $1.2 million to the effort over the next 12 months.

It is often argued that controls on firearms ownership would be productive if they saved just one life. I would respectfully suggest that our investment in safety is saving lives of children and of adults-each and every day. We are committed to doing more and would welcome new partnerships.

Locking Devices
While Congress debates the issue of mandating safety devices with all firearms shipped from the manufacturer, I am pleased to say that we are making the issue moot. Eighty-five percent of all handguns and 73% of all rifles and shotguns are currently shipped with locking devices such as trigger locks, cable locks or lockable boxes. We estimate that at least 90% of all firearms not just handguns will be shipped with locking devices by January 1, 2000.

I must add, however, that while we believe these devices can play a role in the overall effort to discourage unauthorized access to firearms, it would be unsafe and irresponsible to suggest that they could overcome careless storage and handling practices. Education remains a critically important component of firearm education, and our industry remains committed to safety education.

Smart Guns
There has been much written lately about smart guns. While we understand the appeal of smart gun technology, no such gun exists today and most experts believe a reliable model is still years away. Experts at Sandia National Laboratories have stated that a workable smart gun, particularly one that would be acceptable to law enforcement, is still years away. This is an independent analysis, not an industry excuse.

At such time that effective and reliable smart gun technology is commercially available, it is our hope that it can play a role in further reducing accidental firearms use.

That having been said, anyone who suggests smart gun technology might significantly impact criminal use of firearms is probably over optimistic.

Guns as a Health-care Issue
Recently, gun-related fatalities have been compared to automobile fatalities in an attempt to position firearm-related deaths as a health care issue. Such a comparison is patently misleading because only a very small percentage of firearms-related deaths are, in fact, accidental. For example, automobiles are involved with approximately 48,000 deaths each year, over 99% of which are accidental. Firearms are involved with about 35,000 deaths, but only about 4% are accidental. Suicides and homicides account for 95% of this total. The criminal misuse of guns is a crime and violence problem, not a disease or health issue.

Spiral of Lethality?
Recently, in a book by Tom Diaz, the firearms industry was accused of shamelessly pumping out the most powerful handguns it can design in the blind pursuit of new sales and new profits. This is an utterly false accusation.

It is ironic, but nonetheless true, that the most powerful handguns available on the market today are some of the oldest and least popular.

The single most powerful cartridge, for example, the 454 Casull, has been around since 1957. The second most powerful handgun sold today, the 357 Rem Max, has been around since 1983. The third most powerful, the 44 Magnum, since 1955.

Some have criticized the industry for aggressive marketing of new lightweight compact 9mm handguns. It is true the 9mm is the most popular handgun sold today. It is also one of the oldest introduced in 1902 and one of the least powerful, with half the power of a 44 Magnum and one-fourth the power of the far-less-popular 454 Casull.

Major ammunition companies today manufacture cartridges for law enforcement that are approximately 25%-30% more powerful than those available to the consumer. The industry voluntarily restricts availability of this ammunition to law enforcement and has for decades.

In short, the industry is not designing or marketing new, more powerful handguns, and assertations to the contrary are inaccurate and dishonest.

Firearms for Self-defense
Our industry has been criticized for irresponsibly marketing firearms for home defense. We acknowledge that some companies have aggressively promoted the use of their products for home defense. The National Shooting Sports Foundation and the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute, however, neither advocate nor discourage the use of a firearm for home protection. We believe it is inappropriate for any organization whether its NSSF or Handgun Control, Inc. to make a blanket recommendation that an individual in Maine, Montana or Massachusetts should or should not maintain a firearm for self-protection. Such a decision requires an honest evaluation of personal circumstances. Are the purchasers security concerns realistic and consistent with local crime rates? Do other adults in the household support the decision to maintain a gun in the house? If others will have access to the firearm, will they join in a firearms training and safety program? What precautions will be practiced to safeguard children? Do risk factors such as drug and alcohol abuse exist within the household? As stated in one of our brochures, first printed years ago, If you are not willing to accept certain basic responsibilities and adhere to important rules of firearms ownership and storage, we urge that you not purchase a firearm.

The 43 Times Myth
One of the most widely quoted statements about guns in the home is that a firearm kept in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder. It is utterly amazing to me that this statistic has lived as long and gained the acceptance it has. It is very misleading claim and the author admits it!

The study resulting in that statistic counted defensive gun uses only as instances in which the criminal intruder was shot and killed. The author himself admitted that, Studies such as ours do not include cases in which intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a firearm. A complete determination of firearm risks versus benefits would require these figures be known. This approach was not unlike measuring the effectiveness of police officers solely on the basis of the number of criminals they kill. Surely police officers serve a much broader purpose than killing bad guys, and I would suggest the same is true for firearms held for self-protection.

There are no precise statistics maintained on how many times a year firearms are successfully employed to stop or discourage criminal activity, but there are a number of estimates.

Polls by the Los Angeles Times, Gallup, and Peter Hart Research Associates show that there are at least 760,000, and possibly as many as 3.6 million, defensive uses of guns per year. In the majority of cases, such polls show, people simply brandish the weapon to stop an attack. Professor Gary Kleck, a criminologist at Florida State University, indicates there are upwards of 2.4 million defensive uses annually. This suggests that upwards of 400,000 lives are being saved by the use of a firearm annually roughly 10 times the number that are lost and certainly a sharp contrast to Dr. Kellermanns claims.

A 1996 study by University of Chicago law professor John Lott supports that firearms are overwhelmingly effective in deterring crime. The study, which focused on concealed firearms, found that states with concealed weapons laws reduced murders by 8.5 percent, rapes by 5 percent and aggravated assaults by 7 percent. In an understatement, Mr. Lott commented, ...criminals respond rationally to deterrence threats.

The firearms industry is unregulated
Another common refrain echoed by anti-gun advocates is that the firearms industry is unregulated. To most people, this sounds alarming. How can the gun industry have no oversight or government regulation? The truth is, the gun industry is regulated. It is not, however, regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

In 1976, the Consumer Product Safety Act was amended to exempt firearms and ammunition for a valid reason. This exemption was necessary because anti-gun advocates, namely Handgun Control, Inc., petitioned the Consumer Product Safety Commission in 1974 to adopt a rule banning the sale of bullets for handguns. Because it was not the intent of the Consumer Product Safety Commission to provide the authority to ban ammunition, the HCI petition was denied, and the exemption was put into place.

Other industries are also exempt from the CPSA regulation. For example, motor vehicles, pesticides, aircraft, aircraft engines and boats are all exempt from the CPSA. Are these industries unregulated? Clearly not. There are a host of laws and regulations that govern the manufacturing of these products. In a similar manner, there are numerous laws and regulations that govern the firearms industry.

For starters, any and all firearms manufacturers must be licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. The sale of any firearm is documented and regulated. At a minimum, when a manufacturer ships a gun, its serial number is recorded and the gun is logged out of the plant. The distributor, who must be licensed, receives the gun and logs the firearm in. The gun then goes to the retailer. When a gun is sold by a retailer, the buyer must fill out his or her name, address, social security number, phone number and answer 13 other questions regarding drug use, criminal background and citizenship on a form known as a 4473. The dealer then runs a National Instant Criminal Background Check (NICS) and has three days to complete the transfer. So from manufacturer to retail sale, each and every transfer of the gun is recorded. Records must be kept available for inspection and reference.

There are thousands of federal, state and local gun laws on the books. Some of these laws cover individual buyers, some govern what can be made and sold, others regulate how and under what terms and conditions firearms and ammunition can be distributed throughout the country. Firearms and ammunition, while exempt from the CPSA, are subject to the same product liability laws as other products.

Additionally, the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute, formed in 1926 at the request of the federal government, promulgates manufacturing standards for firearms and ammunition using the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) process.

SAAMI is an accredited standards developer for ANSI. As such, SAAMIs standards are subject to ANSI review and various ANSI criteria, and then review by the FBI, U.S. Army, U.S. Bureau of Standards and some 20 other entities, including the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

The Media and Firearms
There exists a very legitimate question as to whether the media treats firearms-related issues with the same objectivity it otherwise attempts to bring to its news and feature reporting.

You may recall a brief, but intense, flurry of media outrage several years ago about a new type of ultra-lethal ammunition called the rhino bullet. Politicians and others rushed to the nearest microphone to decry this new bullet, which was purported to penetrate bulletproof vests and then immediately expand to create horrendous wounds in the victim.

When contacted by media, I suggested that the claims sounded ballistically impossible. A bullet cannot be designed to perform two totally opposite functions. And as it turned out, the bullet was, indeed, a hoax. My point in recounting this incident is to illustrate the way in which, I believe, the media too often treats firearms issues differently than any other. Suppose an inventor had issued a press release saying he had perfected an automobile engine that delivered three times the horsepower of the conventional engine, while delivering more than 100 miles per gallon. Would the media have covered that on the evening news or might they have requested some proof of the inventors claim? I think we all know the answer.

Legislation
Much is written about the industrys opposition to gun control. Let me cite a number of legislative initiatives the industry supports:

Instant background checks at gun shows
Industry supports background checks at gun shows provided the FBI does not maintain the names in violation of the law and the administration agrees to be more aggressive in prosecution of felons turned up by the background checks.

Mandatory locking devices
Locking devices are now included with more than 80% of all new firearms and will be included on approximately 90% before the end of 1999. The industry could support the mandatory inclusion of locking devices with all firearms sold if part of a comprehensive educational program emphasizing proper storage in the home.

Mandatory penalties for adults who allow children access to guns
The industry could support this position, but realizes this is a complex issue. Drafting of legislation will be difficult and critical.

Zero tolerance for unauthorized firearms in schools
The industry supports a zero tolerance policy for firearms in schools. Any individual bringing a firearm to school for other than a previously approved or licensed activity, and any individual threatening or joking about bringing a gun to school for criminal purposes would be subject to immediate suspension and prosecution.

Politically Motivated Lawsuits
First, New Orleans, then Chicago, then a score of other cities have sued firearms manufacturers and industry associations charging that the industry is responsible for firearms crime in their cities and should repay the cities for the costs associated with firearms violence. These suits are an insult to a responsible industry and to common sense.

The New Orleans lawsuit charges that firearms are unreasonably dangerous because they do not incorporate recognition technology that would prevent the firearm from being used by an unauthorized person. Among the technologies suggested are fingerprint recognition, computer chips worn in a ring or a transponder worn on a wristband. While all of this sounds attractive and may have application down the road, the simple fact of the matter is none of this technology is available today. It is obviously illogical - some might use stronger words - to sue a manufacturer for not incorporating technology that does not exist. It would be like suing automobile manufacturers for not incorporating engines that get 100 miles per gallon or for not equipping cars with radar devices that would sense crashes and automatically apply the brakes. Typically, manufacturers are sued when they make products that incorporate faulty technology. The politically motivated lawsuits against the industry do just the opposite. They charge that firearms manufacturers should have incorporated faulty or unproven technology.

The contention that manufacturers and retailers knowingly market and distribute their deadly weapons to criminals and refuse to impose even the most basic controls, for example, is inaccurate and inflammatory. These assertions ignore many years of industry support for efforts to reduce the criminal misuse of firearms, ignore the fact that retailers who sell firearms are investigated and licensed by the BATF and ignore the fact that many federal and local laws govern the sale of firearms to individuals.

Nowhere is our industry position on illegal transactions by retailers more clear than in our booklet, We Urge That You Not Purchase A Firearm... which states, There should be severe penalties for firearms retailers who knowingly sell to unqualified individuals or who knowingly participate in straw mantransactions in which a dealer knows that an ostensibly legitimate customer is actually purchasing the firearm to redeliver it to an unqualified person or for transport into a prohibited jurisdiction.

If some retailers are selling guns illegally, then they should be prosecuted under existing laws. Our industry deplores such criminal activity and does not want our

products in the hands of criminals. However, the industry has no authority by law to regulate firearm sales. Indeed, efforts to do so would almost certainly result in lawsuits under anti-trust laws. Furthermore, the industry does not practice or condone a distribution policy that takes advantage of, or fosters, illegal firearms sales.

There are laws that allow prosecutions of those retailers who sell guns to criminals, minors and others ineligible to purchase them, as well as laws to prosecute those people who use guns illegally. Those laws should be enforced to their fullest extent. When retailers violate laws, they should be put in prison, not put on television.

Some of the lawsuits charge that firearms are a public nuisance. Studies suggest that firearms are anything but a public nuisance and are used regularly by law-abiding citizens to protect their property and family members. Surveys indicate that private firearms may be used in self-defense up to 21/2 million times each year, with 400,000 of these defenders believing that using the gun almost certainly saved a life. The manufacturers of firearms suggest that firearms in the hands of police are not a public nuisance.

Perhaps the best comment on the logic of these lawsuits is that 88% of the public, responding to a CNN poll, did not agree that manufacturers should be liable for gun violence.

Finally, A Quick Look at the Other side of the Coin
Contrary to the conclusion one might reach from reading the morning paper or watching the evening news, there are many powerfully positive aspects to firearms use. Let me share with you two admittedly immodest examples from letters received in our office.

Dear Mr. Delfay: On behalf of the Mid-Atlantic office of St. Jude Childrens Research Hospital, thank you for your support of the First Annual Clays for Kids Clay Target Charity Classic! With your help and that of the 125 participant shooters, we were able to raise over $28,000 for the children of St. Jude Childrens Research Hospital. This is a tremendous accomplishment, and something that could not have been done without your support.

Dear Mr. Delfay: As chairman of the 3rd Annual Irlene Mandrell Celebrity Shoot and as president of The Wish Upon a Star Foundation, I would like to thank you for the continued generosity and participation of the National Shooting Sports Foundation. We raised nearly $20,000 for Wish Upon a Star, more than twice the amount of the first event, and we will grant two wishes in the Portsmouth, Ohio area.

There are thousands of similar shooting-based fundraisers held each year benefiting causes ranging from Boy Scouts to breast cancer research.

In Conclusion
No one abhors the criminal, irresponsible and careless use of firearms more than the people who make those firearms. Speaking on behalf of those manufacturers, I would like to emphasize, again, that the debate over the role and the acceptability of firearms in our society revolves around the unintended and criminal use of firearms and ammunition. That unintended use, while of serious national concern, represents only a very small percentage of the overall use of firearms in our nation. To dismiss or to distort the legitimate and positive aspects of firearms use to further a political, personal or an organizational agenda is inappropriate, if not dishonest, and distracts from an open and productive discussion of the issues.

Our industry is committed to that open and productive communication and we thank you for this opportunity to share our message and to voice our commitment to safety, quality and responsibility.

National Shooting Sports Foundation
11 Mile Hill Road
Newtown, CT 06470-2359
203/426-1320 Fax: 203/426-1087
www.nssf.org

Home > Research archive > 1999 > A Failure to Communicate