HBR:

Absent from much of the discussion, and President Obama’s recent Executive Order in particular, is any role for the gun manufacturers. When it comes to guns getting into the wrong hands, the President’s executive order frames it as a dealer issue to be addressed by expanding the capability of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). When it comes to technological development for safer guns, it is a task assigned to the Departments of Defense, Justice and Homeland Security — not to the U.S. based firms who have been designing and manufacturing guns since the Civil War. So it’s natural to ask: Where are the gun manufacturers?

To understand why they’re absent from any discussions of gun safety, you have to both grasp how the gun industry works — and go back about a decade to a landmark piece of legislation.

None of the “Big 3” sell guns directly to consumers. Ruger sells exclusively to a small set of wholesalers, each of which are licensed by the federal government. Remington sells to both federally licensed wholesalers and directly to some federally licensed retailers (Walmart being its largest retail account). In each case, the company uses this buffer of its distribution structure as a disclaimer of any responsibility for the ultimate use of their weapons. For example, in the wake of Sandy Hook where one of its Bushmaster assault rifles was used for all 26 killings, company management issued a statement saying the company: “…does not sell weapons or ammunition directly to consumers, through gun shows or otherwise. Sales are made only to federally licensed firearms dealers in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.”

Statements like this seem to suffice as legal protection for manufacturers due to the 2005 passage of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act, which the National Rifle Association referred to as its “number one legislative priority and a monumental victory for the Association…” The Act grants broad immunity to manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and even industry trade associations. No action can be brought as long as the product functioned “as designed and intended” and there is no evident negligence. Since the act’s passage, no case has been successfully brought against a gun manufacturer. So without the threat of litigation, the manufacturers’ stance has been to protect the status quo – no matter how unhealthy that status quo is to the public.

“Obey the law” is generally good business advice. But gun manufacturers, guided by senior leaders trained at some of the best business schools in the country, are quite capable of more.

[ … ]

Step one is for manufacturers to adopt the role of steward for the entire gun marketing system, all the way to the buyer. This would include not only efficient distribution within the legal channel but directing meaningful effort to minimize the flow of guns from legal to illegal channels …

Step two is to monitor and stop selling to “problem” dealers …

Step three is to put some portion of the research and development spend — about $25 million in 2015 for the Big 3 — in technology-enabled gun safety to direct a new generation of guns to consumers.

There you have it.  Three easy steps to business success!  First, do the job of law enforcement.  Second, be intrusive into the lives of their customers.  Third, invest money into things (smart guns) that no one will buy, no one wants, and no one will use.

It’s a sad day when a Harvard Business School professor ignores business realities and teaches vapid tripe in order to push a political agenda.  The business realities of his suggestions would certainly be harmful to firearms manufacturers, but of course, that’s his intention, yes?

And how much does it cost to attend Harvard Business School?  Couldn’t you just take that same amount of money, invest it in firearms manufacturers and be much better off?  How is that for business advice professor?