For some, guns are a great business. In the three years since December 2012 (the date of the Sandy Hook killings) the U.S.-based “Big 3” — Ruger, Remington, and Smith & Wesson — collectively generated over $2 billion in gross profits as they sold about 45% of guns in the U.S. Investors also did well: A $100 investment in Ruger in late 2010 was worth $443 in late 2015, while the equivalent investment in the S&P 500 yielded only $163 over that time frame.

But for many, guns are also a deadly business. From the time of Sandy Hook (20 children and 6 adults killed with a Remington assault rifle) to San Bernardino three years later (14 killed with Remington and Smith & Wesson assault rifles), mass killings have occurred about once a week in the United States. And as troubling as these killings are, they represent less than 1% of the 30,000 annual firearm deaths in the United States, a number that includes accidents and suicides. Gun violence is a daily threat to millions of Americans.

Gun control is a vigorous topic of debate, and it promises to remain so throughout the current U.S. presidential election. Debate-producing proposals on curbing gun violence have come from many corners, including the White House.

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. It’s worth remembering Peter Drucker’s famous distinction: “management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right thing.” Good management is an ample supply at the gun manufacturers. For example, Ruger’s new product development process is “doing things right.” It is the stuff of marketing textbooks – extensive market research driving product design and “jury testing” of the final gun design prior to market release. Similarly, Remington’s brand building is done right. Its claim to creating a “portfolio of category-defining brands” (e.g. Bushmaster rifles) and substantial “brand equity” is justified.

Alongside its ability to “do things right,” leading manufacturers have stated their aspirations. The “Ruger Vision,” for example, claims a 60-year history as “a model of corporate and community responsibility.” Remington promises to focus on “creating sustainable value for all” and adopts “society” as a stakeholder of the company. Thus, there seems an aspiration to also “do the right things.”

So what would true Drucker-style leadership look like from gun companies highly competent in “doing things right,” companies that truly have the best interests of society at the forefront? I see at least three steps to take.

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.

There’s already a model that could be learned from and expanded. Since 2000, there has been a small joint effort between the National Shooting Sports Foundation and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms called “Don’t Lie for the Other Guy,” publicizing the penalty in assisting in a straw purchase. However, this program is largely symbolic rather than substantive, as it is executed in only one city per year – it was Nashville’s turn in 2015. The symbolism is important though, showing that government and gun industry cooperation is possible.

A program like this needs investment on a scale that only Big 3 profits could provide. Would this investment increase gun sales? Probably not. Is it what a “model of corporate and community responsibility” would do? Yes.

Step two is to monitor and stop selling to “problem” dealers. Currently, any dealer has to be federally licensed, and gun manufacturers have said that’s good enough for them. While the most extensive study is a bit dated, it showed that 1% of dealers accounted for 57% of guns illegally possessed or used in a crime. The ATF does have some limited power to revoke a license. The gun manufacturers, however, have better data than anyone on dealer performance and are in the best position to quickly stop supplying them if disproportionate numbers of their guns are used in criminal activity.

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. Even the NRA does not oppose “smart” gun development, as long as “conventional” guns are still available. And in all likelihood, a good number of the 300 million-plus guns are in the hands of law abiding people who would value increased safety in the form of decreased likelihood of use by an unauthorized person or accidental discharge. The makers of the guns are best suited to the technological challenges of retrofitting existing guns to enhance safety. This is a potential added-profit opportunity.

Is there any basis for optimism regarding all of this? Is it possible that manufacturers will do more than check to see if the entity they are selling to is federally licensed? The one mention of the manufacturers in the White House January 2016 Fact Sheet on the Executive Order is that “the Administration will engage with manufacturers…to explore what more they can do.” Ruger, for its part, has said “we stand ready to participate in any constructive way to add our knowledge and technical expertise to what is emerging as one of the most critical debates of our time.” The company also noted that “the firearms debate has sunk into a public relations game, replete with personal attacks on anyone who disagrees with someone else’s opinion….it is time that decent citizens toned down the rhetoric against each other.” So, perhaps there is room for guarded optimism.

There is, of course, a difference between a manufacturer like Ruger standing ready and actually doing something. A reluctance to move from passive to active may be understandable given the fate of the last manufacturer to actively engage in forging new rules on gun marketing and safe-gun technology investments. Smith and Wesson’s 2000 agreement with the Clinton Administration on managing distribution and researching “safer” guns inspired NRA scorn and a consumer boycott driving a 95% decline in its stock price. No manufacturer will be able to “do things right” for its shareholders while also “doing the right thing” for society without engaging with the NRA in a productive way. Ruger’s regular financial support of the NRA, its steadfast support for the Second Amendment, and recent appointment of a past president of the NRA to its board of directors indicate alignment of the manufacturer and the trade association — but it’s unclear if that’s progress in the spirit of a safer America.

All of these ideas are from an industry outsider, albeit one who has studied the gun industry in-depth from a management perspective. No doubt, if the leaders in charge of the top gun manufacturers asked “how can we maintain our values, serve our shareholders, and reduce the amount of chaos on the streets?,” they would produce fruitful ideas that outsiders like me cannot possible see. Ruger, Remington, and Smith & Wesson understand the customer, the gun marketing system, present manufacturing capabilities, and future technological possibilities better than anyone. Society deserves to have that knowledge put to use in reducing the amount of gun violence in the country.