HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Time to start going after...

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 03:08 PM

Time to start going after the gun manufacturers

There are millions upon millions of guns on American streets, used to murder people each and every day. The gun nuts will tell us that most of these guns are "illegal" guns. What exactly does this mean? Do these guns suddenly appear out of nowhere, delivered by the Gun Fairy?

A very small percentage of these may be homemade guns - but the vast majority of these are produced by the largest gun manufacturers: Smith & Wesson, Ruger, Bushmaster, Colt, etc. Somehow, these guns have found their way to the streets - either by theft, loss, legal sales, etc. But the fact of the matter is that these guns didn't just pop up out of nowhere.

If we can hold tobacco companies responsible for causing death and illness with their product, then we can go after these death merchants for causing death and injury to our populace. It is absolutely insane that many people cannot walk down their street without worrying if they'll be be shot, or if they can send their children to school without being gunned down. By flooding the market with so many millions upon millions of guns, these death dealers have made this a reality.

It's time to hold them responsible. If this causes the price of guns and ammo to skyrocket - good.

29 replies, 1547 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 29 replies Author Time Post
Reply Time to start going after the gun manufacturers (Original post)
Hugabear Jan 2013 OP
hack89 Jan 2013 #1
tularetom Jan 2013 #2
hack89 Jan 2013 #4
Hugabear Jan 2013 #3
hack89 Jan 2013 #5
hack89 Jan 2013 #6
spin Jan 2013 #11
hack89 Jan 2013 #12
spin Jan 2013 #20
Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #26
OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #7
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #25
OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #29
Sgent Jan 2013 #28
maryland native Jan 2013 #8
dballance Jan 2013 #9
Hugabear Jan 2013 #10
Lurker Deluxe Jan 2013 #13
dballance Jan 2013 #16
NickB79 Jan 2013 #23
SayWut Jan 2013 #14
aikoaiko Jan 2013 #15
Hugabear Jan 2013 #17
aikoaiko Jan 2013 #22
Mugu Jan 2013 #18
Hugabear Jan 2013 #19
Mugu Jan 2013 #21
onenote Jan 2013 #24
farminator3000 Jan 2013 #27

Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 03:12 PM

1. Lets do the same to Anheuser-Busch while we are at it.

let's make America twice as safe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 03:14 PM

2. I'm all for getting rid of that horse piss they call beer

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tularetom (Reply #2)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 03:15 PM

4. Indict them for cultural crimes if nothing else. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 03:15 PM

3. It's all about protecting the guns for you, isn't it

Who gives a damned if people are murdered every day because the gun manufacturers have no problem flooding the streets with firearms. Let's not do anything that would inconvenience you and your gun buddies, or make it more expensive for you to go shooting shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 03:17 PM

5. Why can't we take care of two social ills at the same time?

accidental deaths, illness, suicides, domestic violence, criminal violence - don't you want to stop those things regardless of cause?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 03:19 PM

6. I don't have to protect my guns from imaginary threats.

your "solution" is not grounded in reality - which will become obvious when you think about my "solution".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 04:17 PM

11. Please explain to me why my doctor has suggested I have two alcoholic drinks everyday. ...

He did suggest red wine but had no problem with my drinking two glasses of beer a day.

Happy Oktoberfest! Tapping into the Health Benefits of Beer

By Olivia B. WaxmanOct. 04, 2012


GETTY IMAGES
Email Print Share Comment
Follow @TIMEHealthland
Wish you could be at Oktoberfest? Even if you can’t make it to the epic annual beer bash in Munich, Germany, that doesn’t mean you can’t celebrate your favorite ale — or benefit your health in the process.

As many studies have suggested, moderate alcohol consumption (one drink a day for women, and two for men) may be good for you: drinkers (even heavy drinkers) tend to live longer than nondrinkers, and the occasional drink has been associated with better heart health and lower stroke risk and may even boost bone density in women.

***snip***

Cardiovascular health: Moderate drinking is associated with a 25% to 45% lower risk of heart disease, heart attack and heart-related death. Numerous studies have shown that moderate alcohol consumption boosts levels of “good” cholesterol, which is known to help prevent cardiovascular disease. It’s also linked with a lower risk of stroke.

Brain health: Moderate drinkers are 23% less likely to develop memory problems, Alzheimer’s disease or other types of dementia, according to a review of previous research by researchers at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago. Researchers posit that alcohol may have anti-inflammatory properties (inflammation is thought to play a role in Alzheimer’s disease, along with other conditions like heart disease and stroke), or that it may improve blood flow in the brain, thus boosting brain metabolism. Another theory is that small amounts of alcohol can make brain cells more fit by slightly stressing them; that makes them better able to handle the greater stress that can cause dementia.

Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2012/10/04/happy-oktoberfest-tapping-into-the-health-benefits-of-beer/#ixzz2Ik1pQM8p





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #11)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 04:23 PM

12. Because he knows that most people are responsible in their behavior?

and that they will not contribute to the annual toll of accidents, illness, suicide, domestic violence and child abuse that alcohol inflicts on America through the irresponsible behavior of a small minority?

That would be my guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #12)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 05:42 PM

20. Plus I am a senior citizen with high blood pressure. ...

Fortunately it is under control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 10:03 PM

26. and tobacco

Kills way more

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 03:23 PM

7. Even if you could sue gun mfgs, which you legally can't, you'd have to prove the gun was "new"

 

Given the fact that laws cannot be constitutionally enforced ex post facto (after the fact), ALL of the 300,000,000+ firearms already out there would be exempt from manufacturer liability. This is the same reason that guns are generally grandfathered after a "ban" - new laws can't reach back to prosecute or apply to old situations.

PS: people can walk down the street without worrying if they'll be shot. Crime rates are actually at decades lows despite false public perception driven by our ambulance-chasing mass media.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #7)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 09:58 PM

25. and why can't you, legally? not because of any sensible reason, solely for NRA profits

“Your fight has become our fight,” then-NRA president Charlton Heston declared before a crowd of gun company executives at the annual SHOT Show, the industry's biggest trade show. “Your legal threat has become our constitutional threat," he said.

Following the passage of the shield law that dismembered those lawsuits, the NRA launched a new fundraising drive targeting firearms companies the organization had just helped in a big way. That effort, dubbed "Ring of Freedom," paid off handsomely. Since 2005, the NRA drive has pulled in $14.7 million to $38.9 million from dozens of gun industry giants, including Beretta USA, Glock and Sturm, Ruger, according to a 2011 study by the Violence Policy Center, a group that favors gun control.

The Violence Policy Center study cited an NRA promotional brochure about the corporate partnership drive, noting that LaPierre promised that “this program is geared towards your company’s corporate interests.”


Despite the millions of dollars it has collected from the gun industry, the NRA’s website says “it is not affiliated with any firearm or ammunition manufacturers or with any businesses that deal in guns and ammunition.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/11/nra-gun-control-firearms-industry-ties_n_2434142.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to farminator3000 (Reply #25)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 10:21 PM

29. I agree.

 

The gun control lobby, getting their asses literally handed to them left and right and being swallowed in the post-1995 tidal-wave expansion of gun rights, pulled a chickenshit move and decided to push the filing of numerous lawsuits to try bury the gun industry. Can't beat the RKBA group on the legislature or the courtroom... lets do the American thing and SUE! Well looks like the gun lobby ended up getting their asses beat there too. If there's one thing that's been certain throughout history, it's that anti-rights groups and puritan-politics get desperate and irrational in the face of defeat.

And the NRA pushes propaganda... is that suspposed to be surprising? It's a $200+ million lobbying organization. That's pretty much the MO of any lobbying organization. Regarding gun MFG lawsuits, as usual the players on both side pulled some dirty moves. As usual, the NRA won.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #7)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 10:17 PM

28. That's an interesting case

because I think it only applies to criminal law, not civil.

I know that they have passed retroactive tax law in the past (and some of it resulted in higher taxes), and would assume the immunity to civil litigation would be considered similarly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 03:52 PM

8. Tobacco

You used tobacco as a comparison.

This is where we run into problems.

I understand that much of the tobacco settlements and increased taxes went to programs other than those to help tobacco users.

If that is true, it causes a loss in confidence that these things can help us.

Is this true, and if so, what is the solution?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 03:59 PM

9. It's Silly, In my Opinion, To Try To Hold Gunmakers Responsible

They make a product. They sell that product to distributors and wholesalers. At that point they have no further control over their product. So why are we trying to assign them blame as if they controlled that product all the way to the hands of Adam Lanza and helped him pull the trigger? That's ridiculous.

This is far different than tobacco companies. They know their product in anyone's hand's will likely cause health problems and cancer. They knew it for years and hid the evidence. They knew their product was harmful across the board no matter who used it or how they used it. Cigarettes have no other purpose than smoking them which can lead to cancer.

Gun manufacturers cannot know how their product will be used or if it will be used for harmful purposes. Guns have multiple purposes that are all non-harmful to humans. So they are not culpable in the way tobacco companies are.

How exactly are you going to feel if you sell your old car to someone and before they re-title it they kill someone in an accident and now, since you're on the title, you're in court as a party to vehicular manslaughter? You didn't have anything to do with the accident. But hey, you sold them the weapon that killed someone and legally you were still the owner. Have fun with those legal bills.

I know people are angry and hurt. I agree the gun manufacturers should not be selling the AR-15 type weapons. But suing them because some idiot uses one of the hundreds of thousands of guns they manufactured to kill people is not productive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Reply #9)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 04:11 PM

10. "Guns have multiple purposes that are all non-harmful"

The primary purpose of a gun is to KILL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Reply #10)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 04:23 PM

13. How do they end up being used mostly for their non primary purpose?

How something is used, most often, would be it's primary purpose?

There are literally hundreds of millions of rounds of ammunition fired every year. There are not hundreds of millions of instances of people getting shot. There are l0ts of people who shoot for recreation and sport that have never killed anything.

I think most people will agree on sensible regulation of guns and ammo, but some want nothing less than a complete and total ban.

Not realistic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Reply #10)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 04:40 PM

16. No, there are more uses

No, sorry. I disagree.

I will stipulate to the fact my father would never allow us to have a pistol because he said they were "people weapons only made to kill other people." I agree with him on that.

However, there are a fair number of people who enjoy target shooting and have no intention of ever hunting. This is a use beyond killing.

When it comes to home defense or self-defense there is no rule you must kill in your own defense. You may certainly just disable the person attempting the assault without killing them. Shooting an attacker in the crotch rather than aiming for the heart will probably be just as effective at disabling them without, perhaps, killing. Another use beyond killing.

If you are hunting then the purpose is certainly to kill. I have no qualms with that as long as hunters follow the rules my father taught me and my siblings. First, there is no such thing as "sport hunting." If you shoot and kill it you're going to dress and eat it. We don't just kill animals for fun. Second, always, always pay attention to where your hunting partners are and where your muzzle is pointed. Third, never fire unless you know what is behind what you are firing at and unless you know your shot or bullet will not go beyond what you are firing at and possibly endanger others. These are the basics. I'm sure I could come up with more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Reply #10)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 08:04 PM

23. Then they're hugely defective

300 million guns in the US, with approximately 5-10 billion rounds of ammo fired every year.

If the primary purpose of a gun is to kill, then we should all be dead a thousand times over by now.

If we look at how guns are actually used in the US, it appears their primary purpose is to punch holes in paper and cans, followed distantly by killing wildlife for sport and food.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 04:27 PM

14. That's a no-go.

 

And no, this law shouldn't be repealed.

"15 USC Chapter 105 - PROTECTION OF LAWFUL COMMERCE IN ARMS

(a) Findings
Congress finds the following:
(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms.
(3) Lawsuits have been commenced against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms that operate as designed and intended, which seek money damages and other relief for the harm caused by the misuse of firearms by third parties, including criminals.
"

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/chapter-105


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 04:38 PM

15. Its almost like you're doing the work of the NRA for them.


"They're coming for your guns" - Exhibit A.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #15)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 04:47 PM

17. You think I care what the NRA thinks

The NRA has opposed almost every piece of proposed gun control legislation. Gun nuts scream bloody murder whenever someone suggests doing something about gun violence.

They say we should just enforce the laws already on the books - but then oppose creating databases that would allow just this.

So when you or someone else says something about the NRA, I couldn't really care less what they think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Reply #17)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 07:41 PM

22. Then carry on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 04:58 PM

18. Your hatred of firearms makes your avatar pretty ironic. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mugu (Reply #18)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 05:21 PM

19. Apples and oranges

Che was a revolutionary leader, fighting against a corrupt regime. Completely different situation from what we have in the US. There is no need for violent revolution, unless you seem to think that violent overthrow of the US government is a legitimate need.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Reply #19)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 05:42 PM

21. So, you agree with the NRA that firearms in the hands of the righteous is a good thing? n/a

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 08:23 PM

24. Your tobacco litigation analogy doesn't hold up

As much as I might wish it did. The cases brought by individuals against the tobacco industry uniformly failed. It was only after a majority of the states brought suits. And the odds of a majority of state legislatures authorizing suits against the gun industry is pretty low.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 10:06 PM

27. tax the bejeezus out of them for starters

I would certainly describe something that kills 30,000 Americans before their time every year as a public health problem, wouldn’t you?

So would three Harvard experts who argue in the Journal of the American Medical Association today that the best way to curb gun violence is to treat it as a public health challenge not unlike smoking or car accidents.

From the press release:

They offer more than a dozen recommendations, based on successful strategies used in other public health crises. For example, they suggest a new, substantial national tax on all firearms and ammunition, to more accurately reflect the true societal costs of gun ownership and to provide a stable revenue source to target gun violence prevention. Such a tax would function like the tobacco tax, which provides crucial funding for smoking prevention efforts.

Other “off-the-shelf” approaches to preventing gun violence can be borrowed from efforts used in the 1970s to prevent accidental poisonings, the authors say. In the case of potentially harmful drugs, child safety packaging was introduced. In the case of guns, a similar strategy would be the manufacture of “smart guns” with security codes or locking devices. Also, routine education and counseling by physicians and national networks for education and prevention helped significantly reduce childhood poisoning deaths; similar efforts could help curb gun-related deaths.

Public health efforts to reduce motor vehicle deaths also offer ideas that could help prevent gun violence. Strategies included systematic safety standards for the driver (like driver education and licensing and drunk-driving legislation) and the vehicle (like safety glass and air bags). Similarly, strategies to reduce gun violence might include things like mandatory gun safety classes, penalties for violators of gun safety laws, reduced magazine clip sizes, and restrictions on rapid-fire firearms.

“Changing social norms is a fundamental public health strategy,” said Hemenway. “For common products like cigarettes, cars, and guns, many individuals, groups, and institutions need to become involved. As ‘friends don’t let friends drive drunk,’ similarly friends should help ensure that a friend going through a psychological crisis doesn’t have ready access to a firearm until the crisis is over.”
http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2013/01/gun-violence-public-health


http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/07/up-quick-harvard-public-health-docs-call-for-new-federal-tax-on-guns-ammunition-to-reduce-gun-violence/


http://news.msn.com/us/harvard-professors-call-for-substantial-new-tax-on-guns-ammo

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread