How Gun Makers Can Help Us

[Axiom_Blade]

Very intriguing article in the LA Times, How Gun Makers can Help Us:

We propose a new way to prod gun makers to reduce gun deaths, one that would be unlikely to put them out of business or to prevent law-abiding citizens from obtaining guns....
In other words, rather than telling gun makers what to do, performance-based regulation would tell them what outcome they must achieve: Reduce deaths by guns. Companies that achieve the target outcomes might receive large financial bonuses; companies that don't would face severe financial penalties. Put simply, gun makers -- whose products kill even when used as directed -- would have to take responsibility for curbing the consequent public health toll.

This places the responsibility on the gun companies, instead of lawmakers. It doesn't infringe the Second Amendment.

What do you think about this? Is it worth a shot?
(haha, sorry)

 

[Ziggurat]

Well, it seems to be predicated on the notion that gun deaths is something that gun manufacturers can control. But seeing as how gun deaths aren't really caused by malfunction, why would we expect them to be able to do much of anything about that? And if they can't, isn't this rather wasteful?

 

[Drudgewire]

Which gun manufacturer do they think doesn't test far beyond what any government regulation could possibly require? Even drop gun companies like Hi-Point put their weapons through tests which so far exceed any appliance, automobile, or tool company's it's mind-boggling.

Prod this, Jeffrey Fagan and Stephen Sugarman.

 

[Bikewer]

I agree; for the most part firearms and ammunition are well made and reliable. They have adequate safety features for their intended use.
Deaths are due predominantly by suicide (see the relevant thread), homicide, and accident.
Most accidents are due to unauthorized persons handling the weapon (ie=children) and are preventable by the owner.
Other accidents are due to sheer stupidity, incompetence, or intoxication.
Not something the manufacturer could easily control.

One promising technology is devices which only allow the weapon to be fired by an individual wearing a device which overrides the safety.
Usually, a ring. This is initially intended for law enforcement; as a percentage of police shootings involve their own weapons.
Still, it would likely work well for civilians in certain circumstances.

 

[Drudgewire]

It seems like a roundabout way of making gun manufacturers liable for things completely outside of their control, which is stupid.

It reminds me of the lawsuits stemming from Winchester Black Talons, which doesn't have that great an explanation on its own wiki page but is more fully covered in the page on hollow points:

Even though Winchester voluntarily pulled Black Talon from the civilian market, they were subsequently sued for another 1993 shooting, this one in New York, involving Black Talon ammunition. The suit claimed "negligent manufacture, advertising and marketing of a product that was unreasonably designed and ultrahazardous." However, the court found that "The very purpose of the Black Talon bullet is to kill or cause severe wounding. Here, plaintiffs concede that the Black Talons performed precisely as intended by the manufacturer". Since the bullet was designed to cause rapid incapacitation, and since it performed as expected, the lawsuit was dismissed.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Well, the article's not talking about malfunction or accident, specifically. It's talking about ALL gun deaths.

The companies would be given a target, and an amount of time to achieve it in (say, a 5000-death reduction in 10 years.) It would be up to them to the gun makers to figure out how to do it.

 

[Drudgewire]

Well, the article's not talking about malfunction or accident, specifically. It's talking about ALL gun deaths.

The companies would be given a target, and an amount of time to achieve it in (say, a 5000-death reduction in 10 years.) It would be up to them to the gun makers to figure out how to do it.

It's their responsibility to make guns capable of killing people. Period.

ETA: Glock and Smith and Wessons are gun makers that help me. Over 20,000 have gone through my three handguns and they've never misfired once (don't get me started on my FNP-9

)

 

[negativ]

One promising technology is devices which only allow the weapon to be fired by an individual wearing a device which overrides the safety.
Usually, a ring. This is initially intended for law enforcement; as a percentage of police shootings involve their own weapons.
Still, it would likely work well for civilians in certain circumstances.

Adding layers of complexity to a piece of emergency response equipment necessarily increases the odds that the device will fail. "Police Officer Killed Because Her Expensive Fancy Pistol Didn't Work" is just as bad a headline as "Police Officer Ejected From Cruiser After Airbags & Seatbelts Fail". Liability lawsuits ensue, and "Bob"'s your uncle, as they say.

As to the OP, what do you think the real-world consequences would be of legislation mandating that automobile manufacturers take steps to limit deaths resulting from unlawful use of their product in order to avoid severe penalties?

Why is personal responsibility such a bad thing these days? If I manufacture computers, what is the rational basis for penalizing ME because you used one of them to commit identity theft?

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

I own several handguns from Taurus International. Every one of their revolvers comes with an internal hammer key lock.

None of mine are locked. It's just too hard to manage if the fertilizer hits the fan.

When things start getting excreta-intensive, I want a BIG LOCK and a BIG, EASY-TO-USE key on my firearms (I use Mogul Life Jackets on all of my handguns and my shotgun) when they're not in my direct possession.

With weapons that are in my direct possession, as with cars, the most important safety feature is the nut behind the wheel.

As Montgomery Scott once so wisely said, "the more complicated the plumbing...".

When someone else is becoming criminally dung-distributive, I want simple, straightforward plumbing.

[ETA] I've quoted Sir Robert Peel, here, several times, because of his (apparently outmoded, according to modern Brits) thoughts on what the police force actually is (...that the police are the public and the public are the police...).

That's the, "Bob," in, "Bob's your uncle," as well as the origin of the, "Bobbies," and, "Peelers," nicknames for the London police,[/ETA]

 

[Drudgewire]

Every gun I've bought comes with one of those annoying trigger locks. I think I put one on once just to see how it worked. Otherwise they're basically cat toys.

Taurus revolvers are awesome. Their semis? Not so much.

 

[Bikewer]

Mind, I'm not wild about the technology I mentioned. The History channel's "Tales Of The Gun" had a short segment on research at Colt. They guy admitted there were "problems".....
If they could achieve what I consider to be total reliability (as my issue Glock M23, over 12 years with nary a bobble), I might go for it.
There's an old science fiction story (novella? I forget...) The Weapon Shops of Isher. The weapons are specifically attuned to the purchaser....

 

[Drudgewire]

Mind, I'm not wild about the technology I mentioned. The History channel's "Tales Of The Gun" had a short segment on research at Colt. They guy admitted there were "problems".....
If they could achieve what I consider to be total reliability (as my issue Glock M23, over 12 years with nary a bobble), I might go for it.

I've never had as many misfires with any gun as I did the day I shot a friend's Colt 1911. It was his only gun, he thought that was "about average."

I cursed him. He now owns a Glock 36.

 

[Ziggurat]

It would be up to them to the gun makers to figure out how to do it.

In other words, we'll punish them even if what we demand of them is impossible. With the real goal being to reduce the number of guns by raising the price of guns.

 

[fuelair]

Well, the article's not talking about malfunction or accident, specifically. It's talking about ALL gun deaths.

The companies would be given a target, and an amount of time to achieve it in (say, a 5000-death reduction in 10 years.) It would be up to them to the gun makers to figure out how to do it.

Obviously, a similar requirement must then be made of hospitals - say a 5000 death from illness treated in that hospital over a 10 year period or you close down the hospital.
Both make quite the same amount of sense.

 

[fuelair]

Every gun I've bought comes with one of those annoying trigger locks. I think I put one on once just to see how it worked. Otherwise they're basically cat toys.

Taurus revolvers are awesome. Their semis? Not so much.

True and true and no experience. I have a Taurus .357, 8" barrel (IIRC - didn't really measure), .44Mag, ported, same and the 5-shot .357 snubby - all loaded with Talons (I got several boxes the day the announcement of removal came. )

 

[van_dutch]

all loaded with Talons (I got several boxes the day the announcement of removal came)

If you are referring to the Winchester Black Talons, you can still get what is basically the same bullet sans the black coating, the Ranger SXT, I believe.

Weighing in on this, the phrase "guns don't kill people. people kill people" comes to mind. On a side note, I prefer the saying "blasters don't kill people. stormtroopers kill people" or something to that effect that I saw on a bumper sticker once. The gun manufacturers have no control over how their product is used. What about pharm companies that make sleeping pills that people OD on? I don't see any calls for them to put a stop to that. I think this is ridiculous.

 

[senorpogo]

So anti-gun forces have been rebuffed after D.C. and are now contemplating a back door, bust-Capone-on-tax-evasion style strategy.

First off, would legislation imposing such quotas ever actually become law? If anti-gun types pushed this agenda, all it would do is change the battle field, not the fight itself. The pro-gun lobby would just divert their resources there to counter any such legislation.

Secondly, exactly how are gun makers supposed to decrease gun homicides? Make them fire Nerf bullets? None of the "innovations" mentioned in the article will achieve the stated goal: decreasing murders by firearm. Oh, except one- a self-imposed ban by gun manufacturers on the weapons themselves.

I don't know guns at all so I'll ask - can anyone here name a mechanical innovation on a gun that will allow it to maintain it's ability to fire properly while simultaneously not kill people? It's such a ridiculous and stupid question that I'm sorry I have to even ask it.

It seems like a loser of an idea, a back door attempt at prohibiting the sale of guns. It's the intelligent design of gun control. The sheer audacity and intellectual dishonesty of it gets me mad.

What kind of loon came up with this to begin with?

a professor of law at UC Berkeley

Should have started reading the article from the end and saved myself some time.

 

[Drudgewire]

If you are referring to the Winchester Black Talons, you can still get what is basically the same bullet sans the black coating, the Ranger SXT, I believe.

The rumor has always been it's an anachronym for "Same eXact Thing" (which Winchester denies).

Although I prefer Speer GoldDot myself, if you really want the black coating because it's so pretty, you can't do better than the Hornady TAP:

I keep one magazine loaded with them. As this body gelatin shows, it will turn a bad guy's insides to soup.

 

[jj]

Ok, now gun makers can choose to sell only to rightwing types.
Ok, now gun makers can choose to sell only to leftwing types.
Ok, now gun makers can choose to sell only to white people.
Ok, now gun makers can choose to sell only to black people...

All in the name of "reducing gun deaths". Do you REALLY wanna go there?

 

[Drudgewire]

Ok, now gun makers can choose to sell only to white people.

Wait... we could do that?













It's a JOKE, PEOPLE!