@bunnymud: The most twisted part of having these guns in games is who is paying whom. If a publisher is looking to get a bit of money for product placement, the contact Coke or Nike or whoever, depending on the type of game. Then said company pays the publisher so for that product to feature somewhere hopefully prominently, inside the game. Ta-da, everyone is happy (well, except for us who are being advertised to because, lets be honest... it rarely fits well).
The people who commented for that article, all said that they essentially see their product being included in these games as advertising to young prospective buyers. So why are the publishers paying the gun manufacturers to advertise their products? Shouldn't it be the other way around? If I were some one who ran a company that had to pay to have my product included in a game, I would be super fucking pissed. But this may be the best way to get these licensed guns out of games. Start making the gun manufacturers actually have to pay for their advertising. First off, they would be beholden to certain rules as far as what ways they can advertise (alcohol and tobacco companies sponsor racing teams but cannot be included in games because they cannot advertise their products to children). Secondly they may not be so ready to actually have to pay out for that sort of thing.
Game publishers need to open their eyes to the fact that they are paying to advertise some one else's products.