Thank you Billy



Just because I compared the title with that of a car title, I have no intention of treating a firearm the same way as treating a car. I’m not requiring everyone to register their guns every two years and I’m not requiring people to pass a written or shooting test before they buy a firearm. However, I don’t know what state you’re in, but if my DMV knew that my car was modified to have 600 horse power and could do a quarter mile in 8 seconds I can kiss my registration good-bye. But I could let the proposal slide and I could think up three more. But Jaime is right, we shouldn’t get too far off topic.

But how I think this is relevant to the topic is that I think the gun manufacturers should be responsible in some way. I think if there were some form of title to a gun with a name on it that would keep gun manufacturers out of court and make people more responsible with their firearms. Because quiet honestly at this point I do see gun manufacturers partly responsible for the rise of gun related crimes…not each individual one, but at the macro scale. And victims of gun related crimes have the right to sue them, whether I think they should be compensated…I don’t want to say…I’ll leave that to the court. I think I’m done with this debate, I’m going to move on. I’ve enjoyed it very much. Thanks again.

How is this so? That is the whole crux of this debate. Of course, these people should have the right to sue them but they need GROUNDS. Merely selling a legal product is not grounds, even if the manufacturers are selling lots and lots of them.

I'll take a shot(pardon the pun ) at the flooding of the market first of all. I've been debating issues on forums since they first started popping up on the internet. One of the classic debating strategies is to throw a huge number up and let the shock and awe mask the fact that there is no other basis for the argument.

For example 300,000,000 guns. Three hundred million guns. Wait a minute, that second line didn't have the same effect did it? The fact is, three hundred million guns have been purchased. The demand was there obviously. Anyone here ever go buy a gun because there's just too darn many of them at walmart's sporting section?

How about marketing? . I personally don't own a gun, although I would if my wife was not a felon. I would probably fit the profile of a guy that would want a gun. I'm a conservative guy, between the ages of 25-35, yet I have no recollection of seeing any ads, commercials, junk mail, or even spam email telling me I need to buy a gun. Not only do gun manufacturers not market to the wrong people, it could be said they don't market to the the right people either. Unless you read "Guns and Ammo", you're probably not going to be marketed to at all. Yet, they've still sold 300,0....errr three hundred million guns. I wish the companies I have stock in could do so well.

So, I think marketing is not a factor in whether or not gun manufacturers are responsible for a shooting.

I don't think there is much more to debate on safety precautions, BJ has done a very good job in showing the precautionary measures gun manufacturers have taken to prevent as many accidental shootings as possible. Every new gun you purchase has warnings telling you to not point it at another person, they tell you about the safety mechanism, they tell you how to clean it properly.

Also, show me one gun manufacturer that markets their product for the sole use of killing human beings. Self defense, target practice(which is fun), and hunting have been the only selling points of their products as far as I know.

I will concede the point that gun manufacturers know that some of their guns will be used in murder cases, but car makers know their cars will mow down pedestrians too. It comes down to misuse as others have said.

Unless there is clear evidence that gun makers knowingly target felons, minors, and reoffenders of gun violence I don't see how you can possibly think that gun makers can be responsible.

Do you ever see ads for guns meant for killing people? No, you don't. Look in a magazine like American Rifleman for example. The guns mainly come with a custom design for things like varmint, dangerous game, etc. Not varmint, dangerous game, and Neighbor Bob. So there's no way we can blame the gun companies. If someone is stabbed with a knife, do you go and sue the local cutlery store? I think not.

Note to Aqua: It's spelled "Uzi."

I had posted an excerpt from the proposed Senate Bill 659 that included the following declaration;

"a) FINDINGS- The Congress finds the following:

(1) Citizens have a right, protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, to keep and bear arms."

Dayton Rocker said on July 29 2003, 08:04 PM . . .


I knew that Congress had made similar declarations before in passed legislation but I couldn't remember what laws. It's taken some time but I found them.

Since writing the 2nd Amendment, Congress has rarely spoken on the right to arms.

On three occasions since then--in 1866, 1941, and 1986--Congress enacted statutes to reaffirm this guarantee of personal freedom and to adopt specific safeguards to enforce it.

Even though the slaves were freed as a result of the Civil War, the Southern States reenacted the slave codes which made it illegal for blacks to exercise basic civil rights, including the purchase, ownership, and carrying of firearms. Congress responded by passing the Freedmen's Bureau Act of 1866, which provided:

"the right . . . to have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security, and the acquisition, enjoyment, and disposition of estate, real and personal, including the constitutional right to bear arms, shall be secured to and enjoyed by all the citizens of such State or district without respect to race or color or previous condition of slavery."

In 1941, just before Pearl Harbor, Congress authorized the President to requisition property from the private sector on payment of fair compensation. The Property Requisition Act included the following:

"Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed--

(1) to authorize the requisitioning or require the registration of any firearms possessed by any individual for his personal protection or sport (and the possession of which is not prohibited or the registration of which is not required by existing law), [or]

(2) to impair or infringe in any manner the right of any individual to keep and bear arms . . . ."

The third and most recent time Congress passed legislation including wording in support of the right to keep and bear arms was in 1986. The Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 provides:

CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS--The Congress finds that--

(1) the rights of citizens--

(A) to keep and bear arms under the second amendment to the United States Constitution;

(B} to security against illegal and unreasonable searches and seizures under the fourth amendment;

(C} against uncompensated taking of property, double jeopardy, and assurance of due process of law under the fifth amendment; and

(D) against unconstitutional exercise of authority under the ninth and tenth amendments; require additional legislation to correct existing firearms statutes and enforcement policies; and

(2) additional legislation is required to reaffirm the intent of the Congress, as expressed in section 101 of the Gun Control Act of 1968, that "it is not the purpose of this title to place any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms appropriate to the purpose of hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity, and that this title is not intended to discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes."

I don't know what the above re-afirmations mean in the grand scheme of things but they do demonstrate a continuity of sentiments in Congress and the clear statement of that belief is not new and groundbreaking or worthy of disdain.

What's your point? Congress has been split on the second amendment meaning for years. But the SUPREME COURT has used United States vs. Miller since 1939 as the precedent. The Property Requisition Act was created to give the President the power to requisition all supplies necessary to fight the war, but specifically excluded arms from that power. Sure, they can make that claim for an individual right in justifying it, but that hardly makes it so.

Every case to the Supreme Court since 1939 has stuck with the US v Miller precedent. They had a chance a year ago to rule on Emerson and overturn that ruling, but they punted. They did not take a case that everybody knew was going there. Why not? Because this conservative bench would have had to affirm the 1939 ruling and they knew it.

Gun control laws have not been struck down as unconsitutional. Guns are registered (of paramount importance to the significance of the PRA). So regardless of what any legislation has said, it's all been invalidated by current law (Brady Bill, etc)

Your examples point out what our legislators have to say on it but has nothing to do with the law. However, I will concede I've made an interesting observation in researching the Property Requisition Act . None of the Plaintiff briefs for Emerson and none of the handgun control sites make mention of the act. Although I would think it's not really relevant, I would think it's important enough to make a mention of it and it at least address the significance of it - even if none exists.

Everyone - let's remember to tie in our debate responses to the actual question regarding whether victims of gun violence should be allowed to sue gun manufacturers. This is not merely another 2nd amendment rights debate.

Thanks

I voted for the first option, "Tell them to sue their assailants." Suing the gun manufacture is like a student suing a pencil manufacture for a test with an F letter grade, the myth of tar bubbles causing hot days (guns cause crime), and suing spray paint manufacturers for causing graffiti.

Why should you sue the manufacturer of the gun? There was nothing he could do to stop any one from victimizing you?

The only way you should be able to file a law suit against the manufacture would be if you could prove that he knew that this specific crime was going to be committed and didn't tell any one, and/ or if he made a faulty product.

Arguments of this type are absurd. A pencil doesn't get used several thousand times a year to take somebody's life. A pencil is designed to write with. A gun is designed to shoot people. Obviously, people use guns for target practice and sport, but as a self-defense instrument, it's meant to put a bullet between somebody's eyes. This is it's design.

The problem I have, is the gun makers KNOW many, many times more innocent people will die as opposed to the amount who will be saved by them. But the gun makers have absolved themselves from becoming part of the solution. Nothing they've done has made a meaningful difference in saving innocent lives, but they have no problem pouring as many guns as they can back out onto the streets for more profits. In summary, they've allowed profits to trump public safety. And that's my beef.

Dayton Rocker wrote . . .

I explained "my point,". . . your statement left the reader with the feeling that such a statement, (2nd protects an individual right), in S. 659 by Congress, would be a new way to establish or create an individual right to arms without a determination by SCOTUS to that effect and that tactic is a backdoor method.

I merely posted the previous instances of Congress declaring the 2nd as protecting an individual right to prove that your facts are wrong and your reasoning is flawed.



I'll repeat what I said previously, "I don't know what the above re-affirmations mean in the grand scheme of things but they do demonstrate a continuity of sentiments in Congress and the clear statement of that belief is not new and groundbreaking or worthy of disdain."

That about sums it up except that I do not need any governmental entity to tell me what my rights are.

I will acquiesce to Jamie's request to stay on the lawsuits topic and defer further argument on the 2nd for now. Perhaps the old thread needs to be revived . . . but a new one would probably be less server throughput. Jamie??? Mike???



Then I should have the most ironclad grounds to sue the manufacturers. It seems that my guns, every one of them is woefully defective. Not one has ever performed as designed.

Hey DR,

You're always clamoring for stats. Can I "shoot you with your own gun"? (Like the pun?)

UH......STATS PLAEASE!

Here are some for you that I have found.

Research by David K. Every

You keep saying that guns are designed to KILL PEOPLE. Baloney. Firearms are designed to launch a projectile at a high rate of speed. It is in how it is used that it becomes a killer, or a maimer, or a hunting device, or a really expensive noisemaker.

I myself choose to keep a handgun because of the TRUTH. A handgun is much more likely to PREVENT crime than CAUSE it.

Therefore the excuse to sue gun manufacturers for the MISUSE of their products is insane. They are far more likely to be used to deter crime. Therefore the arguement that gun manufacturers are KNOWINGLY providing a product that causes crime is tripe. They are not being used to cause crime. Therefore manufacturers are KNOWINGLY providing a product that can PREVENT crime as well.

Otherwise, the police must stop using handguns.

Actually, I don't very often. Sometimes I do, but most times I don't. In any case:



Huh? I won't demand stats because there are none that exist that support that argument. However, here is a Department Of Justice Report that accommodates your stats request. In the period between 1987 and 1992, handguns averaged 667,000 crimes per year. During that same period of time, firearms (the report is skewed in the sense that this figure likely means handguns and rifles - not just handguns) were used on an average of 83,000 times per year in self defense. Only 3/4 of these incidents involved violent crime.

So, if we assume that those 83,000 self defense incidents were all handguns, a handgun is EIGHT times more likely to be used in a crime than used to defend yourself. Furthermore, a handgun is 11 times more likely to be used in a violent crime than used to prevent one.

If this isn't a cure worse than the illness, I don't know what is.

Right now I have a toothpick in my mouth, if I stab someone with this toothpick, should that person sue the toothpick company? If I use an ax or a knife, used to cut things, to kill someone, should someone sue Bowie, or the axe company. Doesn't make sense. You are advocating, DR, that a company be held accountable for the MISUSES of their products, does that seem right to you?

CP

Thank you ConservPat. As annoying as it was to see (in effect) welfare checks sent out to smokers, at least there was evidence that the tobacco industry intentionally mislead people about the dangers of their product. Gun makers are guilty only of making a product that gets misused, and I think everyone knows that, so what is there beyond sleazy gold-digging that could possibly be driving this?

Well, lets look at it this way then. I think the u.s sits around 20,000 gun related murders each year. With that known the gun makers should know then that their product is the key in this. Law enforcement takes large amounts of firearms of the streets, but it does not reduce anything do to amount of gun product(density) being put into circulation. With the social problems in the u.s its more of a thing or people that have dealt with it trying to figure out why it happened and most people just accepting such a problem and moving on.

My father is very pro firearm freedom, he owns quite a few firearms. Recently he stopped supporting the nra, when i asked him why, he just said i don’t support what they do anymore, i have no idea about it but its nice to see a firearm supporter with an open mind on things.

With social problems in the u.s, i dont think giving such a social setting a bunch of fireams is such a good idea, something has to be done, but not much anything has worked so far. somewhere along the lines a husband or wife is going to shoot their spouse, someone will die in an armed robbery and some kid will accidently discharge one.

Funny, but I read through the stats you supplied and came up with an entirely different conclusion.

Of the 667,000 firearms crimes in 1992, 656,400 were NONFATAL.

Hence 667,000 crimes
- 10,600 homicides
= 656,400 NONFATAL CRIMES

Furthermore....the offender fired in ONLY 17% of nonfatal crimes.

Hence 656,400 Nonfatal handgun crimes
x .17 actually fired the weapon
= 111,588 times a handgun was fired

IN ALL CRIMES only 3% were wounded

Hence 667,000 handgun crimes
x .03 wounded
= 20,010 wounded

I'm assuming people killed are considered part of that wounded figure since they reported 3% of all crime

hence 20,010 wounded
- 10,600 HOMICIDES
= 9,410 injured


Hmmmmm.......I'm starting to wonder about your "EIGHT times more likely" and "11 times more likely" statements. I haven't even thrown in the KICKER yet.
Here goes.

In the 62,200 cases of a handgun used in self defence in a violent crime (3/4 of all armed crime defenses) 7,300 offenders were injured. Were almost 50/50 in the injuries dept. (not quite)

KICKER....now take into account the times a crime was deterred BUT NOT REPORTED. How many times has a homeowner scared off an intruder, but not called the police? How many times has a woman in a dark parking lot scared off a would be rapist, but not called the police? How many times has a person deterred a crime in a state with draconian gun laws, and not called the police?

Remember.....these are YOUR STATS.

(added) Oh, and by the way. It states that 1/5 of defenders armed with a firearm were wounded, whereas 1/2 of defenders without a firearm were wounded. What would you rather defend yourself with....a phone or a gun?

Why does the u.s have such a problem with guns, why does a gun maker need to produce a six shot p-245r that can be neatly hidden. People play stats off like it means nothing, sure only 600,000 people got shot last year, lets see if it happens this year and the next and so on. Does that not point to some kind of organic problem in the u.s social structure then. If such patterns keep repeating should gun makers not know at that point the amount and type of firearms they make play a role in this.

You are completely missing the point. Toothpicks are designed for activities relating to food (picking teeth, holding finger foods, etc). Knives are designed to cut our food. Baseball bats are used to hit baseballs. Obviously, knives and baseball bats get misused, but their primary purpose is used to positively affect people's lives.

If handguns were designed primarily for sport (and this is an absurd premise), we wouldn't need high caliber weapons and hollow point slugs massed produced. Every weapon would come with some type of capability for a scope.

And guns wouldn't be called weapons.

As previously stated, law enforcement is sacrificing their lives to get guns off the streets. But the gun companies, SOLEY FOR THE SAKE OF PROFIT, make as many as they can with no regard for who gets them.

Everybody has a right to make as much product and as much profit as the can. But there are enough guns available to provide each man, woman, and child a gun in this country. So, what do the gun makers do to help with the problem with gun violence?

They make more. This is not becoming part of the solution. And until they do, they should pay.

Actually, the 667,00 was an average over that period. There were 930,700 handgun crimes in 1992.

As far as the "....now take into account the times a crime was deterred BUT NOT REPORTED" rhetoric, it's just that - rhetoric. I don't think there are as mnay vigilantes out on the street as you, but neither of us can prove it.

If you want to start THAT debate, how many more people would have been killed or murdered had the gun not misfired or failed? It's a bullcrap argument.

Edited to add:
Before I get yelled at again, I am aware of double posting. However, I am adressing two different people and it is easier to address statements this way.

Well, please stop.
It eats space and is unnecessary. If you want to address two points within a post you can easily do that. If quoting is your issue, Mike took a lot of time to address that here: Heeeelp!, ...with [QUOTE][ / QUOTE] tags....

Gun control often makes me think of a scenario where two kids are fighting and one finally throws gravel from their driveway at the other. The mother then decides to pay for a dump truck to come and remove every piece of gravel from their driveway. And the next day, the kids fight again, but grab sticks or gravel from the neighbor's yard. Good thing she wasted all that time and money eh? In this case, the mother is just suing the gravel company. Nothing about this latest frivolous lawsuit holds any water with me.

Who said anything about removing all guns? I don't think anybody with a credible interest would want that to happen.

I am in favor of handgun control. I really don't care about rifles and even assault weapons. You can see these (for the most part) and they are not as convenient to to transport for nefarious reasons. But handguns can be hidden in a sock. And there are far, far too many handguns available for which there is no practical purpose.

We need to make them harder to get. Manufacturing considerably less handguns would keep many more off the street. Don't stop making them because there are some legitimate uses. But quit flooding the market with more than society actually needs.

DR: You don't undersand the proper use for guns then, and you are saying they are used primarily for shooting people without any data to back that up, so forgive my confusion. Guns are not primarily used to kill people, they are used for a wide variety of reasons, murder not being one of them, so if a murderer kills someone with a gun, why should gun manufacturers be the blamed party.

CP

In my opinion the designated use of the item, handgun in this case, doesn't even matter. As long as handguns are legal and not defective, the manufacturer cannot be held liable for not doing what they are not required to do. We cannot and should not litigate to have a company do something that some people would pretty please want.
That's what a legislature is for, pass a law.

What IS the proper use of a small caliber handgun with a barrel less than 3 inches?

I'm not even a gun nut, but I know enough about guns to know that you don't use junk guns (the ones made by the Ring Of Fire companies) for sport.

By the way - I did serve 4 years in the USMC and qualified as expert with the M-16 and sharpshooter with a .45 every year. I'm a hack in skeet shooting, but it's fun as hell. So, I'm not gun illiterate).

It fits very nicely in a lady's handbag, obviously.

Don't forget a .25 caliber can fit in a garter belt too!

Exactly. Which means, their primary purpose is not used for sport. As a self defense weapon, it's designed to kill someone. Unfortunatly, that gun is 8 to 11 times more likely to be used in a crime than be used to defend against one.

This appears to be the only argument where fighting fire with fire seems justified.

Right, very sporting that women live in a world where they are subjected to being kidnapped, raped and murdered by men TWICE their size and strength and who have a higher tendency to violence. Not all men, mind you, just the pieces of trash who abuse women.

I'm willing to bet the armed robbery and violent criminal statistics for females are significantly lower than the victim of violent crime statistics.

armed and female

Links please. Right, so the gun, by your admittance is used for self-defense, which, leagaly, is not murder, so therefore, murder would be a misuse of the weapon.

CP

Good grief...can't anybody stick with one argument?

First you state:
DR: You don't undersand the proper use for guns then, and you are saying they are used primarily for shooting people without any data to back that up, so forgive my confusion. Guns are not primarily used to kill people, they are used for a wide variety of reasons, murder not being one of them, so if a murderer kills someone with a gun, why should gun manufacturers be the blamed party.

Then after I have showed you how some guns are designed to shoot people and not used for sport after you asked for, it's:
Links please. Right, so the gun, by your admittance is used for self-defense, which, leagaly, is not murder, so therefore, murder would be a misuse of the weapon

I've showed you links and I've shown you proof. You've shown me nothing as to how flooding our streets with more handguns helps our society. Your tactics have switched to moving goalposts. I've focused on gun crimes in general...not just murder.

DR: I didn't switch arguements, I just used your arguement against people, and by the way, you've been saying murder. Any crime is not the intended way to use a gun, it's that simple, if you commit a crime with a gun, you are misusing it, you've yet to answer my question, should companies be held responsible for their products' misuse?

CP

DR, it seems to me that you're more concerned about the "killing" aspect than the actual legal crime of murder, because CP made very good point, you admittedly say that they're for self defense, which is NOT murder. If your contention is that guns kill people, yes they do. But, if used properly, as the manufacturer recommends, murder would be misuse of the handgun.

But, if you want to get into an ethics/morality discussion, we can either create a new thread or really all I'd like to say is that if it means the death of either a kidnapper/rapist or an innocent woman walking down the street, then I say let women carry as many guns as they want.

You need to read and learn something. I've given you stats and figures, but I can't force you to read them. And I have provided more than enough data that suggests that a gun is far more likely to be used in a crime than to be used in self-defense.

I sure wish the folks at Operation Rescue would think this way and stop harrassing abortion providers!


I can only see suing the manufacturer if the gun blew up in your hand or something. Defective product, makes sense.

But using a gun to kill someone, either legally or illegally, is not going against the purpose of a gun at all. There's some pretty sketchy rationalizing about the "purpose" of guns. As if it somehow wasn't to kill.

Why do we call them weapons?

Is there anyone who will try and claim that guns were NOT invented as weapons? Saying that guns are designed to shoot a projectile at high speed is a cop out, like saying the cause of death in a murder was lack of oxygen to the brain. Guns are weapons. Weapons were developed and are designed with one overriding purpose - to kill other people. Everything else you can do with it is just gravy.

No, you've ignored my point. If a gun isn't made for murder, by your own admission, then murdering would be a misuse of the gun. If a gun isn't made for a crime, and a crime is committed with it, that is a misuse, now please answer me, should companies be held accountable for the misuse of their product?

CP

We joked about fast food lawsuits after the smoking ones and they happened. Watch, as idiotic as it sounds, I bet you that soon we will be seeing Ford getting sued over a vehicular homicide. There is no reason or end to it.

The gun industries should be held accountable. Yes.

As stated 6 times before and somehow you still miss it (no wonder you could never grasp my point on this), is the gun makers are flooding the market with handuns knowing full well more people will be harmed then helped by it's availability.

Again, for the seventh time, if the gun makers were ensuring their product went into responsible hands (or at least a reasonable effort), that would be one thing. But with 250 to 300 million guns avaiable in the US as it is, they are pouring more out as fast as they can with no regard who gets them or why they get them.

This is being a a public nuisance in my opinion.

Okay, well, in that case, it is ridiculous to hold the manufacturers of anything to be held accountable for what some idiot does with their product. Everyone would be sued. Including:
Knife Companies
Pick Axe Companies
Gun manufacturers
Pen Companies

The list goes on and on. How can a gun manufacturer insure the product doesn't go to a murder, and what business do they have doing that? They already have background checks for gun owners, that should be enough, a manufacturers job is to make products, not police what people do with them, once the gun changes hands, the responsibility does also.

CP

It's NOT the gun manufactures responsibility, it's the GOVERNMENTS responsibility. You don't go to the car manufacturer to get a drivers licence. The manufacturer is ONLY responsible for making sure they're providing a product that works correctly.

Geez, now we're back to the knife and baseball bat argument again. I don't feel like repeating myself yet again, so screw it. I don't have that kind of time.

I can't debate with people who fail to read and understand the entire argument. I've made numerous responses to multiple requests, but I hear the same questions and points over and over.

You don't need a debate. You need a reassurance.

DR,
Some may say the same about your argument. Your line has been the same, that a legal industry isn't doing enough in your opinion to voluntarily slow production or engage in some sort of civil works program concerning their legal product.

Your call for litigation, where there is no legal basis for such is just as frustrating as you claim others arguments are.

There is no justifiable way to hold a corporation responsible for someones misues of their product, to do so would be to defeat the idea of individual responsibility, the only way to decrease crime, by putting the blame where it should be, at the hands of the person who pulled the trigger, not the guy who makes guns for a living.

I have not known anyone hurt or killed by guns but I strongly believe that victims or their surviving family members should be able to join a class action lawsuit. My reasoning is this based on same as it is legal to sue the bar or restaurant which serves too many alcoholic drinks to someone who then later mames or kills someone else while drunk driving. The person who shoots someone else is partially to blame but if he/she did not have the means (the gun) to do so thus preventing certian situations. Bartenders provide the means of impairment which leads to accident. Gun makers have no way of knowing who is sane or not so they should be liable for providing the means.

mrbluiis,
This is babysitter mentality, making other adults responsible for another adults actions and decisions, which basically places blame on a person who has no control over another, only the individual has control over oneself. Surely you can cut off someone who is 'visably' drunk, or deny a felon access to a gun, but in the end, anyone can become dangerous with either a vehicle or a firearm, how can that be blamed on the supplier of commonly accepted goods or services?

Let's try this, then, Dayton.

Firearm manufacturers cannot, by federal law sell a gun to an individual. Even if I were to order a rifle from say, Winchester, they cannot ship it directly to me. It must be sold and shipped to a federally licensed gun dealer in my state. I must then go to that dealer, present my identification, fill out all the forms, etc. before I can purchase this rifle.

Using your own statements as quoted above, the manufacturers areensuring their products are going into responsible hands. The gun dealer.

Theoretically, the gun dealer is also ensuring that this rifle is going into "resposible" hands by being required to obtain from me all of the info for a background check, etc. mandated by the government, before actually selling me the rifle I have ordered.

Now, if I "loan" this rifle to you, and you end up using it to shoot up the local university quad as a sniper, who's fault is that?

1. You are at fault for killing those students, not the gun maker.

2. I am at fault for loaning you the gun.

3. If the dealer sold it to me, and didn't follow procedures, he is at fault, not the gun maker.

The manufacturer does nothing in this chain of events to be culpable. Even in selling to a particular dealer. The government says who is a valid Federally licensed gun dealer, not the gun maker.

And as for your oft quoted figure of 300,000,000 guns in the hands of people, and the assertion of the gun makers "flooding" the market, this is a falacious argument. These guns wouldn't be out there if there were no demand for them.
No gun manufacturer that I know of foists their product on an unwilling public.
And it's not their job to try and determine why I want it. In fact, that's none of their business.

[QUOTE]


When you are a huge industry as gun makers and tobacco companies. You have to have some measure of conscience and ask yourself "how is our product affecting society?"

The tobacco company states that their product are not defective. In other words they make a product full of poisons for human inhalation for a purpose.

But this is gun maker thread so...

Yes when you live in a society where some people are bipolar or go postal...yes you do need to have a babysitter mentality for the good of all concerned. If we can't take the guns out of the hands of thugs who steal them from law abiding citizens then the next logical step is to remove a certian number of sources to where they get them.

And to mention another point you brought up. You said, "...which basically places the blame on a person who has no control over another."

Yes the gun maker does have the control as they are the ones making them.

But as long as guns are a legally available product, that argument doesn't hold water.

Do we require car manufacturers to make cars which are impervious to accidents? Do we require them to make cars which will protect everyone involved in the case of drunk driving? Obviously, car manufacturers KNOW that a certain percentage of cars will be driven by intoxicated individuals. Aren't they to blame for all those deaths? What about car deaths which arent't alcohol related? The manufacturers obviously KNOW that a certain number of fatal car accidents will occur during the use of their product. Shouldn't they be responsible since they KNOW it will happen?

Of course not.

As long as guns are legally available, the manufacturer cannot be held responsible for the illegal use of their product. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Cars primary purpose is transportation. When abused, they kill people.

The gun's primary purpose is to be a weapon. When used correctly, it kills people.

We care who drives a car and we make every reasonable effort to make sure the person driving it is responsible. However, a gun doesn't care where it's cop killer bullet goes and we regulate that less than we regulate owning a fricken moped.

The gun manufacturers have active lobbyists helping to make sure they can sell as many guns as possible. Which, is not bad because they have a right to make all the money they can. However, it's a matter of public safety and their complete disregard of it in the sake of profit. That's the problem I have with them.