Term of the Day: DEATH-FOR-PROFIT

No doubt you have heard the various terms to describe business entities and their relation to profits:
for-profit -- an entity that works to make a profit, which is the typical business model
non-profit -- an entity that does not work to make a profit, even though it earns money, usually involved with large-scale enterprises (i.e. UNICEF, American Heart Association)
not-for-profit -- an entity that does not work to make a profit, even though it earns money, usually involved with smaller-scale enterprises (i.e. amateur sports league)

Today, I would like to introduce a new term, even though it falls squarely under the for-profit category.  This term is specific to any entity that works for profit, allows the work for profit, or encourages the work for profit, with utter disregard for human life.  The term is ...

DEATH-FOR-PROFIT

In light of the National Rifle Association's long-term bullish push for looser gun laws and the obsessive promotion of making more weapons available to more persons, all of which increase our chances of being killed and benefit guns manufacturers and gun sellers, the common denominators are death and profits.

You might read that last statement and say that, yes, more sales can generate profits and, yes, deaths occur using weapons and their related paraphernalia, but lumping the two together seems odd.  Yes, it seems odd to you and me, but not to certain politicians, groups like the NRA, gun manufacturers, and gun sellers.  How?  The reality is that every single time there is a mass shooting in the United States, the stock values of gun-related companies go up and sales of firearms increase.

Here is how the stock values of three major gun manufacturers fared after the Las Vegas shooting:
American Outdoor Brands (formerly Smith & Wesson) up more than 3%
Sturm Ruger & Company (largest firearm manufacturer in America) up 4%
Olin Corporation (ammunition/chlorine/sodium hydroxide maker) up 6%

Bump fire stocks (devices that alter a semi-automatic firearm to fire like a fully-automatic firearm), which the Las Vegas shooter used, are now hot items at gun stores.  Last week, Reuters news service noted a gun store in Georgia had received no requests for bump stocks prior to the Las Vegas shooting.  Afterward, requests went way up.  The store's owner said that the requests had likely gone up simply because people are "just worried that they're going to be banned".  Why would anyone worry about bump stocks being banned?  For protection?  To exercise their second amendment right?  Because they are firearm collectors, like antiques?  My feeling (and yes, concern) is that they, too, are interested on some level, consciously or subconsciously, in mass murder themselves.  Yes, that is a wild statement, but, in all seriousness, I cannot fathom any reasoning to be worried that an item that turns a weapon of war into a weapon of war that fires faster being banned unless you want one for yourself for that same purpose.

Stocks going up, gun sales going up, and gun paraphernalia sales going up means one thing for gun manufacturers: profits.  The increase of guns and their paraphernalia means one thing for us: increased chances to be killed.

Let us not overlook politicians who profit from the gun lobbies.  As the old saying goes: Don't bite the hand that feeds you.  Here is a list of the top ten senators and representatives who have received monies from the NRA over the course of the length of their entire respective political careers:

House of Representatives

French Hill (Republican from Arkansas) -- $1,089,477

Ken Buck (Republican from Colorado) -- $800,544

David Young (Republican from Iowa) -- $707,662

Mike Simpson (Republican from Idaho) -- $385,731

Greg Gianforte (Republican from Montana) -- $344,630

Don Young (Republican from Alaska) -- $245,720

Lloyd Smucker (Republican from Pennsylvania) -- $221,736

Bruce Poliquin (Republican from Maine) -- $201,398

Pete Sessions (Republican from Texas) -- $158,111

Barbara Comstock (Republican from Virginia) -- $137,232

Senate

(No, these dollar amounts are not misprints.)

John McCain (Republican from Arizona) -- $7,740,521

Richard Burr (Republican from North Carolina) -- $6,986,620

Roy Blunt (Republican from Montana) -- $4,551,146

Thom Tillis (Republican from North Carolina) -- $4,418,012

Cory Gardner (Republican from Colorado) -- $3,879,064

Marco Rubio (Republican from Florida) -- $3,303,355

Joni Ernst (Republican from Iowa) -- $3,124,273

Rob Portman (Republican from Ohio) -- $3,061,941

Todd Young (Republican from Indiana) -- $2,896,732

Bill Cassidy (Republican from Louisiana) -- $2,861,047

Mind you, these are just the top ten recipients in each house of Congress, not all of the recipients.

Let's say there is a mass shooting somewhere and you, as a member of Congress, express your sorrow and call for better gun control.  Not an unusual move.  In fact, they are the right things to say and your constituents would expect you to do so.  Now, let's say you are one of the politicians listed above, as well as any of those who take money from the NRA, or any other pro-firearm proliferation organization, and you say the same things.  What are your constituents supposed to think?  I am not talking about what you want them to think -- that your sorrow and intent to do the right thing are genuine -- but what should they think?

They should think you are a disingenuous and self-serving fraud with blood on your hands who sleeps well at night while more and more of us are being killed.  Every single one of you.

Terry