Bill Overview
Title: Responsible Firearms Marketing Act
Description: This bill requires the Federal Trade Commission to investigate and report on potentially unfair or deceptive practices that may be prevalent in the advertising or marketing of firearms. Additionally, the commission must issue regulations prohibiting such practices, and the bill provides for enforcement by the commission.
Sponsors: Rep. Malinowski, Tom [D-NJ-7]
Target Audience
Population: People exposed to or involved in firearms marketing
Estimated Size: 100000000
- The bill focuses on the advertising and marketing of firearms, directly impacting organizations that market firearms.
- It also affects consumers of firearms who may be exposed to potentially unfair or deceptive marketing practices.
- Indirect impacts could be seen on public safety as well-informed advertising might lead to more responsible gun ownership.
Reasoning
- The Responsible Firearms Marketing Act targets deceptive or unfair advertising in the firearms market, which indirectly ties to public wellbeing by potentially affecting gun safety and ownership decisions.
- Given the budget constraints and the target population, the policy's focus is mostly on the marketing sector, but its indirect influence can be felt by consumers and general citizens concerned about gun safety.
- With a direct target on marketing practices, firearm manufacturers and sellers will be more vigilant about their advertising integrity.
- Given the sizeable number of American gun owners and those exposed to firearm marketing, the impact will be significant mainly in terms of information dissemination and consumer protection.
- The policy indirectly aims to foster responsible gun ownership by ensuring ethical marketing, potentially lowering misuse and mishandling of firearms. This can have a medium to long-term impact on public safety and wellbeing.
Simulated Interviews
Gun shop owner (Texas)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I agree with policies promoting transparency in marketing.
- There might be an increased compliance cost, but it's manageable.
- Overall, it promotes trust with customers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Marketing executive at an arms manufacturing company (California)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our advertising practices are already ethical, this should have minimal impact.
- The regulations could promote industry-wide ethical standards.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Public safety advocate (New York)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This step is crucial to ensure responsible marketing.
- It should be a part of a broader strategy to promote public safety.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Hunting enthusiast (Georgia)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I rely on honest ads for my purchasing decisions.
- The policy seems fair if it means more trust in advertising.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
College student (Illinois)
Age: 23 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm curious about how companies market firearms.
- This policy may positively affect accountability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Retired military (Florida)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a positive step toward ethical marketing.
- Implementation needs thorough oversight.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
School teacher (Colorado)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could lead to better-informed decision making by the public.
- Implementation in schools should also be a focus.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Firearms instructor (Nevada)
Age: 36 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Advertising affects the way new gun owners perceive safety.
- This policy might enhance responsible training practices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Gun rights activist (Arkansas)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Marketing regulations should not infringe on personal freedoms.
- As long as rights are respected, I see value in truthful advertising.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Firearms supplier (Virginia)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Regulations could raise compliance; might see a slight impact on operations.
- Support for actions that lead to safer communities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $18000000)
Year 2: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $18000000)
Year 3: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $18000000)
Year 5: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $18000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The ability of the FTC to enforce the regulations efficiently will depend on budget allocations and legislative support.
- The impact on firearm manufacturers and marketers could result in pushback, affecting regulatory timelines.
- Estimating direct savings is challenging since benefits are mainly public safety and consumer protection-related.