This story from The Trace popped up on my news feed.

The Ad Execs Who Want to Put Graphic Warnings on Ammunition

Oriel Davis-Lyons and Gustavo Dorietto hope their marketing campaign will prompt states to adopt the kind of graphic labels that adorn cigarette packs in more than 100 countries.


Imagine this: You head to your local gun retailer to buy bullets for your hunting rifle, and as you pick up the ammunition box, you are confronted with the image of a bloodied young woman in a hospital bed, the survivor of a near-fatal domestic shooting. A line of text below the photo reads: “In homes where domestic violence occurs, a gun increases the risk of women being killed by 5 times.”

If a pair of advertising executives have their way, this would be the future of ammunition buying in the United States.

Exactly what is the point of this?

The argument for the graphic warnings on cigarettes is that smokers don’t know what smoking does to them.  Showing them gory pictures of tumorous lungs will make them think of they are doing to their bodies and stop smoking.

That is radically different than domestic violence.  Besides the fact that people convicted of domestic violence are prohibited persons, we all know that domestic violence is wrong.

The guy buying hunting ammo is not likely a spousal abuser and the act of buying ammo isn’t going to make him become an abuser.

Also, does the guy who goes to the gun store to “bullets for [his] hunting rifle” not know what bullets do?

Oriel Davis-Lyons and Gustavo Dorietto, creative directors at the New York City-based ad agency Droga5, are developing graphic warning labels for ammunition that are similar to those that adorn cigarette packs in more than 100 countries. Studies have found that such labels, which include close-ups of tumors and people dying of lung cancer, are effective at deterring all but the most nicotine-addicted smokers from buying tobacco.

Davis-Lyons and Dorietto say they want to inform consumers of the dangers that can result from guns, something that’s not currently being done at the point-of-sale.

I’m pretty sure gun owners know what the dangers are a lot better than some ad execs from New York City.

The guy who puts a 168 grain 308 through a deer doesn’t need a graphic ad to conceptualize it.

“Gun violence is a public health crisis, and we need to raise awareness, among both gun owners and non-gun-owners, about the devastating toll it takes on the lives of Americans,” Davis-Lyons told The Trace. Ahead of National Gun Violence Awareness Day on June 7, Davis-Lyons and Dorietto have released a one-minute ad and a website (both of which contain graphic images). They are also promoting the campaign with the hashtag #DontLookAway.

Gun violence is not a public health crisis.  It is a “there is a small percent of criminals who cause all the problems” crisis.  Gun violence does not spread like a disease where anybody who touches a gun has some statistically significant change of becoming infected.

If the campaign reaches a critical mass online, the two hope to leverage its success into a broader push to convince at least one state to require the ammunition labels.

Fucking California.

The warning label idea came to Davis-Lyons and Dorietto after the Parkland shooting, which left them feeling “pretty despondent,” said Davis-Lyons, whose past advertising work also includes spots for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and Amnesty International. “We spend a lot of time thinking about brands and how to make them famous, but how could we do something for this issue?”

Hopefully, this will be like the Hilary campaign, a very expensive loser.

This is what they propose.

The prerequisite for that is that domestic violence already exists in the home.

I have never laid a finger on my wife in anything but affection.  Making ammo companies apply labels that assume that I am a spousal abuser is just offensive on its face.

And for the unconvinced spousal abuser, will that label stop them from buying ammo?

Mark Oliva, director of public affairs at the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for the American firearms industry, said that graphic warning labels on ammunition “is not something the industry would support. It would do nothing to contribute to public safety. All these things do is stigmatize gun ownership.”

Joseph Sakran, a trauma surgeon and gun violence survivor who has consulted on the labeling project, acknowledged the likelihood of opposition. “It’s going to be really difficult, because powerful lobbying groups in this country are probably going to make this an uphill battle,” he said.

Because treating law-abiding gun owners like assholes is the real goal here.

How about warning labels in doctors offices that say “Ask your doctor if he washed his hands well enough before he gives you sepsis or MRSA.”

That would also save lives but I assume doctors would hate it.

But Sakran said he feels the concept could prove effective because the focus is on bullets, rather than guns themselves. “I think for a long time no one really thought of focusing on the ammunition piece,” he said. “But if you think about it, the ammunition piece is important, because that’s how people who are either going to commit crimes or are a danger to themselves or others are able to follow through.”

That is some dumb shit.  That is college snowflake liberal “the Constitution doesn’t say you have a right to own bullets, how about a bullet ban” logic.

The concept also approaches gun violence as a public health problem, which is essential for reform, Sakran said, and it requires a multi-faceted approach. “Think of motor vehicle fatalities. In the ‘60s and ‘70s, we didn’t get rid of cars. We figured out how to make cars safer. We came up with seatbelts and airbags and we made roads safer. It’s that same type of approach.”

Again, getting people to wear seatbelts when that was not the cultural norm is different than accusing law-abiding people of engaging in criminal activities for buying a legal product.

Davis-Lyons said he’s consulted with gun reform groups, as well as the American Public Health Association, and believes that attorneys general in each state have the power to implement warning labels on ammunition.

But before he can focus on a trial run, he said he just wants to start the conversation. “People are starting to talk about the need to actually face the reality of what this gun epidemic looks like, but no one has yet found a way to do that in a way that reaches gun owners,” Davis-Lyons said. “So we’re hoping that this is the first step in bringing it to the public.”

How about graphic warning labels against raising boys in fatherless homes?  This is the number one predictor of both gang violence and school shootings.

But I have a feeling feminists groups would protest that.

This proposed warning label won’t save one life, it will just insult law-abiding gun owners to their faces, which really is the point.

Spread the love

By J. Kb

19 thoughts on “Ammo is not like cigarettes”
  1. “…we need to raise awareness, among […] non-gun-owners…”

    That’s your key take away right there, in an effort to stigmatize gun owners and gun ownership and to also reduce the number of new gun owners. I think it was former AG Eric Holder that made the comment, a long time ago, about brainwashing people and something about gun owners cowering in shame like smokers.

    1. My first thought was that requiring a picture of a gaping wound on a box of defensive ammo would result in loud cries of “dang! I gotta get me some of that”

  2. This idea will work about as well for ammo as it does for coffin nails. Are smokers deterred by warning or pictures on a pack of ciggies? Will gang bangers be deterred by a picture of a shooting victim? Leftist logic (or lack thereof)on display.

  3. How about warning labels on every ad produced by these idiots showing images from the Holocaust with the caption “In countries that commit genocide, gun control laws are 100% effective”?

  4. Clueless.

    Treating the wrong root cause. If these people were doctors, they would be in court for malpractice after their first patient.

    As noted. With very few exceptions, the person that gets shot is being shot by someone that is fully aware that they are deliberately trying to cause another person harm. Some people may choose to take up smoking, vaping, or other harmful activities because they look cool, or someone they want to emulate does it. They may be unaware of the dangers of that activity.

    If you are unaware that a loaded gun is inherently dangerous, you are mentally incompetent to the point that no respectable FFL would carry through with the sale.

    And, I realize that the graphic artist is probably some early 20s snowflake, but that box does not contain FMJ ammo. Are they not capable of using google?

    1. Looks like it could be FMJ-FN for .40 S&W to me … that usually has flat noses in my experience, and the round on its side might not be showing a cavity (can’t really tell…)

      On the other hand I am pretty certain it ain’t .38 Special… And I do love the dud round … The other one on its side is clearly showing a struck primer but the bullet is still there… 🙂

  5. he just wants to start the conversation.

    I am heartily sick of this line. No he doesn’t. He wants to browbeat people he doesn’t like and feel self-righteous about doing so.

    I can also see a couple of backfire responses to actually doing this label thing. For instance:

    “Armed women doesn’t get assaulted. Don’t let this happen to you. What’s inside can help.”

    1. @It’s Just Boris: Amen, brother.

      Anyone who’s been paying attention will tell you, there is no “start[ing] the conversation”; the conversation has been going on for decades — longer than there’s been a 2nd Amendment — and the “gun control” side hasn’t fielded a single new idea for most of it.

      Hell, the “novel” concept of weapons bans is old, as in Old Testament old; the Hebrews were disarmed and forbidden weapons pretty much everywhere they ended up. And after being disarmed, they were almost invariably forbidden from worshiping their God, and more than once they were enslaved.

      Putting warning labels on ammunition? Do they seriously think nobody has thought of that before?

  6. [cue snark]

    I for one love this idea, with one caveat: We do it for EVERYTHING.

    Warning signs in doctors’ offices reminding you to ask if they’ve washed their hands.

    Warning labels on power tools showing pictures of severed fingers (a good friend nearly lost his thumb to his lawn mower recently – that one hits close to home).

    Warning labels on Oreos showing what five pounds of human fat looks like (what kind of evil money-grubbing corporation *cough*Nabisco*cough* would protest this?).

    Warning labels on matches and lighters showing burnt-down homes and victims of 3rd-degree burns.

    And buying a car should require you to sign a waiver acknowledging that you’ve seen the photos of collision victims and watched the video of responders using the Jaws of Life to literally cut a critically-injured driver out of the mess of scrap metal that used to be his car.

    While we’re at it, advertising campaigns should require a warning label that the ad company has an evil-capitalist agenda to sell any product whatsoever to you, using whatever means to grab your attention, not caring one bit about your health and well-being, and you should spend your money wisely.


    Here’s a better idea: We take comedian Bill Engvall’s advice from his 1990s-era “Here’s Your Sign” routines, and remove all the warning labels off of everything. Instead, we make stupid people — ad execs, liberal politicians, “Progressives”, etc. — wear a sign saying, “I’m stupid,” and then we simply don’t sell anything even remotely dangerous to them. Everyone else gets to live their lives normally.

    When an article from The Trace makes significantly less practical sense than a Blue Collar Comedy routine, they have officially gone off the deep end.

    1. It would work nicely to put on billboards all around the county “Liberalism is a Mental Disease. Just say NO to stupid and useless feel-good actions.”.

  7. In California, we have Proposition 65–Prop 65 for short. Prop 65 requires a printed warning on any product that contains any ingredient (component, substance, etc.) that may have caused some hapless lab rat, once upon a time, to develop cancer (by ingesting 10,000 times the normal dose for months on-end). Buildings, properties, offices, and businesses that contain or use Prop 65-listed materials must also post a Prop 65 warning for all to see.

    Prop 65 works like a charm. Today, thanks to Prop 65, no one in California gets cancer. Oh, and I forgot to mention, the lawyers make a fortune.

  8. That picture sure looks like someone who got battered by brute force, and was unable to defend herself with a suitable defensive tool (i.e., a gun).

  9. I’m kinda certain that The Parkland Dingleberry was in no way unaware of the likely effect of shooting his schoolmates.

    I’m pretty sure that when Cletus malignant half wit wife beating cousin decides it’s time to bust a cap on Lula Jean, no graphic picture on the box of ammo he purchases will cause him to stop and think, “Ya know, that looks pretty ouchy. Maybe I shouldn’t ought do that to Lula Jean!”

  10. Hahahahaha…
    Yet women can’t be made to see the aftermath of abortion, prior to having one.
    1-all this will do is sell ammo, excellent
    2-abortion has ZERO to do with womens health care.ZEeeeeeeeeRo!

  11. Billrla and Joe in PNG:
    CA Prop 65 warnings are posted EVERYWHERE and are utterly useless.

    Typical liberal “feel good” and pointless action where a lack of results and unintended consequences are not even considered.

    This is why we have a slew of stupid gun control laws here.

Login or register to comment.