Sure and we need the petro-chemical industry to cure and treat all cancer cases in the US.

Then we can have congress and all politicians be personally liable when they vote for wars that incur large public debt. Maybe the Bush family should be liable for the Iraq war for the next 300 generations?

Or the boating idustry can be liable for all boating deaths and of course the murders which occur on those vessels.

Then we can go after the alcohol industry, they can be liable for every single drunk driving fatality in the US.

Then the drug companies can be liable for every single side effect and death (stated or otherwise) of the drugs they make.

Yeah, this will make America a utopian state.

But lets be honest, every other industry is getting a pass on the harm they cause. Exxon gets a pass on the Valdez accident even though their employee was drunk on the job.

The drug companies are being made immune to law suits if the drug they sell was approved by the FDA. Which of course they lobbied congress heavily to force the FDA to fast track drug approvals with deadly effects.

The gun industry just needs to start paying the congressional liberals. That way they can get industry protections too. Of course that's really what this is all about. Those politicians want just some extra pocket cash.

FTA-"Gun makers might decide to add trigger locks to their guns, or to work only with dealers who meet certain standards of responsibility. They might withdraw their semiautomatic weapons from the consumer market, or even work hand in hand with local officials to fight gangs and increase youth employment opportunities."


This has got to be one of the most ridiculous statements I've read. Trigger locks don't stop gun owners from shooting at other people. Gun dealers work under a high level of legal requirements (standards). Semiautomatic guns don't kill people any more than revolvers can. If all the law enforcement in the country can't stop gangs how the fark is some company which machines metal parts going to stop them?

This article is the sort of ignorance that perpetuates this nation's problems.

Con_Authority: This article is the sort of ignorance that perpetuates this nation's problems.

*golf clap*

I remember when Smith and Wesson added trigger locks to their handguns and they were crucified for it.

That's like beating up on GM for installing seat belts.

But we all know exactly how much meaningful gun control legislation that the gun lobbyy is prepared to pass through Congress, don't we?

Con_Authority

Gun dealers work under a high level of legal requirements (standards)

In north Philly, they require a locking trunk on their car so no one robs them when they close up shop.

The Massachusetts Attorney General made strict gun control laws in the guise of "consumer protection" regulations. Basically his goal was to outlaw cheap guns. It worked about like you expect: guns are still freely available to criminals who are breaking the law by even looking at a gun so what do they care if the gun is substandard. Strict sentences for illegal gun possession may have turned a few criminals in central Massachusetts from guns to knives for their crimes. The Worcester Telegram keeps saying so, at least.

The federal government took over car safety in the late 1960s. There may have been a few useful rules as a result. Mostly, lawyers make up laws because they can. For example, the 85 mile per hour speedometer was mandated as a "safety" regulation by Carter's NHTSA.

Marcus Aurelius: Con_Authority: Gun dealers work under a high level of legal requirements (standards)

In north Philly, they require a locking trunk on their car so no one robs them when they close up shop.

To be fair, there's a 30 day exception if someone pops it before you absolutely have to have another lock installed. But you have to use a bungee in the meantime.

Actually the government does require car comapnies to build safe cars and the result is a huge improvement in safety.

It's amazing how little people know about how the world works.

Idiots.

FTFA Gun manufacturers insist that these deaths are not their fault, preferring to pin the blame on criminals...

Murderers are responsible for murders? That can't possibly be right.

From reading the news, tons of Fark gun threads, and watching the reactions of people to firearms laws, I believe there is a set of people who are incapable of thinking rationally about guns or behaving sensibly around them. I also believe that it is this set of people who yell the loudest and influence policy the most. This legislation is stupid, yet look at the legislators, and most importantly, look at the electorate for why it even exists in the first place.

When I was 12, the school district spent an afternoon teaching us all basic firearms handling with bolt-action .22s, and everyone fired at least 5 rounds at paper targets. Most places don't do this--I'm surprised they did it in 1988, what with liability and all.

danceswithcrows: I believe there is a set of people who are incapable of thinking rationally about guns or behaving sensibly around them. I also believe that it is this set of people who yell the loudest and influence policy the most.

Exactly. The NRA is probably second only to MADD when it comes to lobby influence. Very well run organization.

I hope the Green Movement is required to reduce their body counts from all of the mass starvation and malaria their policies have caused.

Nemo's Brother

I hope the Green Movement is required to reduce their body counts from all of the mass starvation and malaria their policies have caused.

? I can hardly wait to hear the explanation for this.

...guns have steadily remained the cause of about two-thirds of all homicides

You just thought it was greed or hate or lust or, going back to Cain and Abel, envy, that caused murders.

Under our plan, Congress might require gun makers in the aggregate to reduce gun homicides from 12,000 to, say, 7,000 in 10 years,

Ten years!
This plan will do nothing to lessen gun deaths anytime soon. We shouldn't start any plan that won't do anything to help immediately.



/Hey, I did learn something from the oil drilling debate... :)

TheOther: You just thought it was greed or hate or lust or, going back to Cain and Abel, envy, that caused murders.

I never understood how guns don't "cause" weapons, yet you have an "inalienable" right to a gun. I thought you had a right to defend yourself, and the gun was just a tool of doing that. Kind of like how a gun is just a tool for committing a crime.

Marcus Aurelius: In north Philly, they require a locking trunk on their car so no one robs them when they close up shop.

Serial killers are required to have that, too.

Descartes: Ten years!
This plan will do nothing to lessen gun deaths anytime soon. We shouldn't start any plan that won't do anything to help immediately.

FTFY

In LA, it's easier to point a finger at the gun manufacturers than the gangs that use them to shoot people.

LocalCynic: guns don't "cause" weapons

whut?

Jesus you gun nuts are...well you're nuts. I'm not against guns by any means but taking some further precautions to minimize shooting deaths, whether accidental or not shouldn't make you stomp your feet.

And yes automakers have had to jump through hoops to make cars safer, including a crash test rating to help consumers decide on the safest buy. Comparing apples and oranges really makes your point stronger.

Con_Authority: Semiautomatic guns don't kill people any more than revolvers can. If all the law enforcement in the country can't stop gangs how the fark is some company which machines metal parts going to stop them?

This article is the sort of ignorance that perpetuates this nation's problems.

Semiautomatic and automatic weapons are more popular with those gangs, that is how. You talk about ignorance but seemingly refuse to look at the situation from any angle other than "I want my guns".

Summary: "Since all our efforts to stop murder have failed, we should charge the gun companies to figure out how to do it."

Actually the government does require car comapnies to build safe cars and the result is a huge improvement in safety.

Also, cars are extremely socially/economically beneficial. Guns, not so much.

Con_Authority: The drug companies are being made immune to law suits if the drug they sell was approved by the FDA. Which of course they lobbied congress heavily to force the FDA to fast track drug approvals with deadly effects.

Wow are you misinformed. FDA approval gives no liability protection to drug companies and drugs are not fast tracked because companies want them too.

DD0: Semiautomatic and automatic weapons are more popular with those gangs, that is how. You talk about ignorance but seemingly refuse to look at the situation from any angle other than "I want my guns".

That's retarded. If you outlawed semi-automatics tomorrow, it wouldn't do shiat. Even if criminals can't still get them (which they probably could), they'll just switch to revolvers instead and just as many people will die. Then you'll want to outlaw revolvers, and so on and so on. It's pointless.

It doesn't matter what GM or Ford want to do, they're closing up shop in about 5 years anyways. Their steadfast resistance to the obvious, impending changes are what did them in.

Besides, most Toyotas that we buy are made in the USA anyways. Buy American, not Mexican.

ilambiquated: Actually the government does require car comapnies to build safe cars and the result is a huge improvement in safety.

Those additional required features not only deprive consumers of choice (such as not paying an extra $200 for a doohickey that prevents rollovers in 1 out of 500,000 cars -- perhaps someone would be willing to take that extra risk for $200), but they also add weight to cars which lowers fuel efficiency.

So, in short, having congress decide what we need to have on our firearms when most of them don't know much more about firearms than what they saw in that last Arnold Schwarzenegger movie probably wouldn't be the best idea.

Abner Doon: DD0: Semiautomatic and automatic weapons are more popular with those gangs, that is how. You talk about ignorance but seemingly refuse to look at the situation from any angle other than "I want my guns".

That's retarded. If you outlawed semi-automatics tomorrow, it wouldn't do shiat. Even if criminals can't still get them (which they probably could), they'll just switch to revolvers instead and just as many people will die. Then you'll want to outlaw revolvers, and so on and so on. It's pointless.

Too bad I didn't say anything about outlawing any weapons tomorrow or any time. But I'm not surprised to see a response with little thought.

And yes if that did happen it probably would have a pretty big impact in terms of gang violence. A drive-by isn't quite the same with a revolver.

Smellvin: ilambiquated: Actually the government does require car comapnies to build safe cars and the result is a huge improvement in safety.

Those additional required features not only deprive consumers of choice (such as not paying an extra $200 for a doohickey that prevents rollovers in 1 out of 500,000 cars -- perhaps someone would be willing to take that extra risk for $200), but they also add weight to cars which lowers fuel efficiency.

So, in short, having congress decide what we need to have on our firearms when most of them don't know much more about firearms than what they saw in that last Arnold Schwarzenegger movie probably wouldn't be the best idea.

Yes, those little doohickeys haven't improved auto safety at all and only reduce fuel efficiency. That is easily the most retarded attempt to justify your gun ownership anyone has ever attempted.

Those heavy seat belts man, they do nothing but add money at the pump! And screw those air bags, I'd rather my kid's head went through the windshield rather than me paying an extra 10 cents at the pump. What the fark are you talking about?

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoplophobia:

'Hoplophobia, (pronounced [ˌhɔpləˈfoʊbiə]), from the Greek hoplon, or weapon, is defined as the "fear of firearms" [1] or alternatively, a fear of weapons in general, and describes a specific phobia.'

If you have a phobia about a thing, you should not be trusted to craft legislation about that thing (would you trust an agoraphobic to craft laws that say you can't leave your house?)

If you hate guns, you have hoplophobia.

Ergo, if you hate guns, you're a crazy person and no one should listen to you.

WHEN YOU make a product whose sole purpose is to put holes in people and make them dead,

and entrench freedom to use said product in the constitution

you should hardly be able to biitch
when it works.

DD0: And yes automakers have had to jump through hoops to make cars safer, including a crash test rating to help consumers decide on the safest buy.

This would be applicable if the measure was meant to reduce the number of gun related accidents, but it's not. This proposition is about holding third parties responsible for the deliberate, criminal actions of another person.

Should we hold Ford responsible every time a taurus is used in a hit and run? Or maybe Oldsmobile should pay damages the next time some old woman drives her 88 through a farmers market.

DD0: And yes if that did happen it probably would have a pretty big impact in terms of gang violence. A drive-by isn't quite the same with a revolver.

Then why not just make being in a gang illegal? Make wearing blue or red and gathering in groups of more than 10 while outside after 11pm a criminal offense. That way, only the people we want to target are affected, as opposed to everyone.

ElwoodPDowd: DD0: And yes automakers have had to jump through hoops to make cars safer, including a crash test rating to help consumers decide on the safest buy.

This would be applicable if the measure was meant to reduce the number of gun related accidents, but it's not. This proposition is about holding third parties responsible for the deliberate, criminal actions of another person.

Should we hold Ford responsible every time a taurus is used in a hit and run? Or maybe Oldsmobile should pay damages the next time some old woman drives her 88 through a farmers market.

You conveniently left off the part where I said they were comparing apples and oranges.

But yes, gun accidents do occur frequently. Further safety precautions could help prevent them, but that isn't the topic at hand.

Con_Authority: This article is the sort of ignorance that perpetuates this nation's problems.

I really thought the article was supposed to be sarcasm, I was looking for the redirect to the onion, its amazing people really think that way. Most illegal guns come from out of country so good luck on stopping that.

davynelson: WHEN YOU make a product whose sole purpose is to put holes in people and make them dead,

and entrench freedom to use said product in the constitution

you should hardly be able to biitch
when it works.

Yeah, goddamn Colt forcing Franklin and Jefferson to write the Second Amendment. Probably at gunpoint, too.

DD0: You conveniently left off the part where I said they were comparing apples and oranges.

But yes, gun accidents do occur frequently. Further safety precautions could help prevent them, but that isn't the topic at hand.

Granted. Not disputing your point, just trying to stop the derailment of the issue at hand.

ElwoodPDowd: DD0: And yes automakers have had to jump through hoops to make cars safer, including a crash test rating to help consumers decide on the safest buy.

This would be applicable if the measure was meant to reduce the number of gun related accidents, but it's not. This proposition is about holding third parties responsible for the deliberate, criminal actions of another person.

Should we hold Ford responsible every time a taurus is used in a hit and run? Or maybe Oldsmobile should pay damages the next time some old woman drives her 88 through a farmers market.

I bet Congress won't hold John McCain's or Jesse Jackson's family responsible any time someone dies or kills someone else as a consequence of drinking beer from their distributorships.

To respond to a previous comment: Dont some counties/cities (like LA) have laws that only allow the sale of non-magazine fed rifles which are limited to a 10 round capacity?

I seem to have heard something like this as people were rushing out to buy SKS type weapons with a non-removable 10 round ammo bed and insert stripper clips

Im not 100% sure what the actual difference is there, but doesnt setting gun technology back 100~ years help to lessen crime in those areas?

As far as who should be held responsible, again it's apples and oranges but numerous manufacturers have been held accountable for deaths and injuries in all kinds of products. Yes, automakers are still sometimes held responsible for injuries, much more so in the past before further safety precautions were added though.

Perhaps if gun makers increased precautions the same way automakers did fewer people would think they should be held responsible. Personally I don't think someone murdering someone has anything to do with the gun maker, but I also don't think some idiot flipping his car is the automakers fault. Sometimes things don't work out like that though.

If you can blame a tire for a death, you can blame a gun.

DD0: Semiautomatic and automatic weapons are more popular with those gangs, that is how. You talk about ignorance but seemingly refuse to look at the situation from any angle other than "I want my guns".

Yes, but DD0, those gangs *don't give a shiat about the law!* The only difference this makes is maybe they'll have to (illegally) import their weapons from somewhere else, but since they're already (illegally) obtaining them, what difference is that to them?

smerfnablin: To respond to a previous comment: Dont some counties/cities (like LA) have laws that only allow the sale of non-magazine fed rifles which are limited to a 10 round capacity?

I seem to have heard something like this as people were rushing out to buy SKS type weapons with a non-removable 10 round ammo bed and insert stripper clips

Im not 100% sure what the actual difference is there, but doesnt setting gun technology back 100~ years help to lessen crime in those areas?

It does make the argument that the founding fathers gave Americans the right to own guns sound a little better in this day and age. They certainly didn't have an assault rifle or an uzi in mind when they did. Things change with time, but who am I to point that out.

smerfnablin: To respond to a previous comment: Dont some counties/cities (like LA) have laws that only allow the sale of non-magazine fed rifles which are limited to a 10 round capacity?

I seem to have heard something like this as people were rushing out to buy SKS type weapons with a non-removable 10 round ammo bed and insert stripper clips

Im not 100% sure what the actual difference is there, but doesnt setting gun technology back 100~ years help to lessen crime in those areas?

Short answer? No.

DD0: As far as who should be held responsible, again it's apples and oranges

You keep saying it's "apples and oranges", and yet you continue to compare the two.

ElwoodPDowd: DD0: As far as who should be held responsible, again it's apples and oranges

You keep saying it's "apples and oranges", and yet you continue to compare the two.

I'm not comparing the two. People act like only gun manufacturers have ever been accused of being responsible for a death. That is completely false.

Nor did I bring up the comparison of the two. Saying there are more auto deaths couldn't be more misleading, considering cars are more frequently used and readily available than guns. So yes, it's apples and oranges.

DD0: It does make the argument that the founding fathers gave Americans the right to own guns sound a little better in this day and age. They certainly didn't have an assault rifle or an uzi in mind when they did. Things change with time, but who am I to point that out.

No, they didn't. But back in the day, the difference between your hunting/self defense weapon and the military issue weapon was that one was purchased by the Federal Government and the other was made locally by a gunsmith. The technology was the same.

The reality is that the problems we're facing now are societal problems, not gun problems. The main criminal users of guns are tied in with drugs, poverty, and poor living conditions. Those same people don't care about gun laws, and they get their guns by stealing them or smuggling them in. When all is said and done, you've just made life a little more dangerous for the law abiding citizens and the police who try to enforce the law.

And how would Congress propose such a thing work? Maybe the gun makers can introduce a higher gun jam rate, or pressure the ammo manufacturers to make less lethal bullets. Perhaps 1 out of every 5 bullets can be filled with confetti instead.

After the gun manufacturers are made responsible for gun-related deaths, we can make the knife manufacturers responsible for stabbings or nicks of the finger. When all the knife makers are out of business, let's make God responsible for all the beatings people give to one another with sticks.

Yeah. Congress sucks.

"I'm not comparing the two. People act like only gun manufacturers have ever been accused of being responsible for a death. That is completely false."

um, wasnt the Tek-9 banned because it was specifically designed to murder people in an urban environment?

i seem to remember a successful wrongful death lawsuit against the original manufacturer that generated 2-3 movie spin offs.

/yes, i know there are 10 guns that look just like it now

icy_one: And how would Congress propose such a thing work? Maybe the gun makers can introduce a higher gun jam rate, or pressure the ammo manufacturers to make less lethal bullets. Perhaps 1 out of every 5 bullets can be filled with confetti instead.

After the gun manufacturers are made responsible for gun-related deaths, we can make the knife manufacturers responsible for stabbings or nicks of the finger. When all the knife makers are out of business, let's make God responsible for all the beatings people give to one another with sticks.

Yeah. Congress sucks.

See.

/And with that I'm off
//Have some things to shoot at