This is a shining example of the problem with our gun debate

[bossy22]

It is filled with commentators in our media who don't do any research on the topic they are commenting about

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/18/opinion/frum-obama-plan-b-on-guns/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
On guns, President Obama needs a "Plan B."

The president himself recognizes that the votes probably aren't there to pass any significant gun legislation through Congress. In his State of the Union address, he was reduced to pleading with Congress to allow a vote at all, never mind actually enact anything.

Even if Congress were seized by a sudden change of heart, the measures the president has proposed seem unlikely to achieve much.

Universal background checks would be a baby step forward. But until state governments join background checks to some effective system of gun licensing, the checks are very easily evaded. A felon or domestic batterer or disturbed person need only find a person with a clean background to buy a weapon for him.

He goes onto make unsubstantiated claims such as "guns are inherently unsafe because of their design" (how many people get injured every year because a firearm malfunctions? not many, if any), "gun makers make guns with features that are only good for criminals", and "there is no reason not to have the seriel number in a hidden spot" (except that it also makes it easier for the purchaser and dealer to see when they fill out the forms and all other times someone might need to see the number)

There are points to be made on both sides of the issue. The problem is that the ones "who get the microphone" are the ones who know least and care not to know.

[bowens43]

1. unsubstantiated claims such as "guns are inherently unsafe because of their design"

Are you kidding me?

THEY ARE DESIGNED TO KILL PEOPLE. Yes they are unsafe because of their design. What they are designed to do is UNSAFE! What part of killing people do you believe to be safe????

There are two sides to this issue the side of sanity and the side of the gun nuts....

[bossy22]

3. your post is another shining example

I'm talking about safety from the users standpoint- does the gun have an inherent defect that will cause injury to the person firing it due to no fault of the user. Aslong as the user follows the "rules" of gun safety, the chance of anything happening to them is extremely unlikely. Compare that to medications which even if the user follows all the directions, still faces a significant chance of further injury because of things outside his control (genetic make up and pharmaceutical formula)

[ProgressiveProfessor]

4. The claims that were made are bogus and you too are incorrect

An unsafe firearm blows up in the hands of the user or similar event. Accurately firing a bullet at the intended target is the correct and safe functioning of a firearm.

There indeed are two sides, those who know what they are talking about, and those, mostly pols, who don't

[holdencaufield]

8. My gun hasn't killed a single person ...

... can I get a refund?

[ileus]

14. SD firearms are designed to save lives.

Hunting firearms are designed to harvest game animals and varmints.

Target firearms are designed to punch targets (paper, metal, clay, and others)

[ProgressiveProfessor]

2. Posts like this one will upset the delicate flowers to no end.........nt

[bossy22]

6. I was expecting that

Though it's sad that it will.

[krispos42]

5. A recent "Freakonomics" podcast discussed this issue.

They were of the opinion that the best deterrent is to make anybody that commits a crime while in possession of a gun serve a fixed period of extra time, whether the gun is used or not.


They said it worked in California. I suppose the devil is in the details (speeding while carrying, a $86 fine plus 5 years in prison?), but the idea is probably sound.

[Eleanors38]

9. I believe President Obama is opposed to manmins.

[krispos42]

12. "Mandatory minimums"

Jeez, I've been wondering what the heck that meant for a few hours now, until it finally sunk in.



But it would be a deterrent; a clear, non-negotionable disincentive to carry a gun casually or in the commission of a crime. Maybe the career criminals would only carry them for major crimes, then.

[Eleanors38]

19. I agree, but I think Obama does not like minimum mandatorys because of Drug War abuse...

which is well-documented. It probably hits close to home -- the Chicago one.

There is some evidence that NYC's experience with hard prosecution of felons in possession of a firearm has deterred their use there.

[jmg257]

13. Not sure speeding is a crime in most states...usually a violation or infraction.

[krispos42]

16. I'm being hyperbolic, of course.

But let's say I legally carry concealed while camping and an arrant ember accidentally lights a forest fire that destroys a house or damages a development or something. Should I get an extra 5 years? I was carrying a gun when I committed the crime, after all.

I'm just saying that I assume there is a range of crime classifications that it would be applicable to, not a blanket prohibition.

[holdencaufield]

15. So, if I legally carry in California

And get caught in a speed trap, spit on the sidewalk or cross against the light -- I'm going to prison for five years?

Do you realize what would happen to a cute guy like me in prison? I think I'll pass on Comic Con this year.

[spin]

7. I could spend a lot of time replying to this post but I will simply address one part. ...

So many gun accidents occur because guns almost never indicate whether a bullet is present in the chamber. A gun owner might remove the gun's magazine and believe the gun unloaded, when in fact it still contains one potentially deadly shot. Why not require guns to be equipped with indicator lights? Why not require that guns be designed so that they will not fire if dropped? We have safety standards for every consumer product, from children's cribs to lawnmowers, except for the most dangerous consumer product of them all. Not only that, Congress has actually immunized makers of that product against harms inflicted by unsafe design.

I have several semi-automatic handguns in my safe that I have not used for the last seven years. Let's suppose that they were equipped with indicator lights. Obviously these lights would require a battery power source. When the battery went totally dead the lights would not function.

Most common modern firearms ARE designed to not fire when dropped.

Drop safeties
Many jurisdictions such as the State of California require some form of "drop safety" on all new firearms, which are usually passive safeties designed to reduce the chance of a firearm accidentally discharging when dropped or roughly handled. Such safeties generally provide an obstacle to operation of the firing mechanism that is only removed when the trigger is pulled, so that the firearm cannot otherwise discharge. Drop tests were introduced with the federal Gun Control Act of 1968 for imported guns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_(firearms)#Drop_safeties

You CAN use a gun manufacturer if he makes a defective product.

Product Liability and Guns

Every year thousands of people are injured and killed by firearms. If you or someone you know has been injured by a firearm, you may wonder what recourse you have. Depending upon the circumstances of the injury, you may have recourse against the manufacturer, seller, distributor, owner or purchaser of the firearm under theories of products liability and/or negligence. Consulting with an experienced products liability attorney will help you understand any claims you may have for injuries caused by a firearm.

***snip***

Firearms and Defective Product Cases

A product can be defective in a number of ways. If a product is marketed with inadequate instructions or warnings as to foreseeable risks, it is defective. If a product is manufactured with a flaw, but the design and marketing of the product are fine, it is called a manufacturing defect. If a product is designed in such way that it is foreseeable that injury could result, and if the risk of injury could have been reduced by an alternative design, then a product is said to be defective in its design. When looking at alternative designs, the court will look at the costs associated with the alternative designs, whether the proposed alternative would in fact have reduced the foreseeable risks of harm associated with the product, and whether the failure to use the alternative design made the product unreasonably unsafe at the time it was manufactured. If a product is defective in the way that it is marketed, manufactured, or designed, and someone is injured as a result of that defect, then the manufacturer, distributor and/or seller of the product are usually liable, or responsible for the consequences of the defect.

If the weapon appears to have malfunctioned in some way, then recovery may be possible under a products liability theory. In determining whether there was a malfunction, the courts will look at whether the weapon operated as expected or intended. Thus, while there have been many attempts to argue that guns are defective because they are dangerous, the fact that a weapon injures or kills when fired has not traditionally been considered a defect in and of itself.

Products liability cases involving weapons have been successful where the injury is alleged to have occurred due to a true malfunction of the weapon or due to inadequate warnings relating to an unexpectedly dangerous quality of the weapon. For example, a gun with a firing mechanism that is significantly more sensitive than other similar guns might require a warning as to that quality. That highly sensitive firing mechanism might also be considered a design defect. A gun manufactured with an inadequate safety could be both defective in design, if the inadequacy was by design, and defective in manufacture, if the inadequately designed safety was also manufactured with a flaw.
http://injury.findlaw.com/product-liability/product-liability-and-guns.html

[AtheistCrusader]

11. My springfield XD has a cocked indicator, and a loaded chamber indicator.

Not just visual, but tactile as well.

And there is STILL zero chance of me relying upon either to know if it's 'safe' to point the gun at something important/valuable/human and pull the trigger like an asshole.

[slackmaster]

17. The Walther P.38 is designed so that you can tell if a round is chambered without cycling the action

...in the dark, silently, without risk of wasting a round by having it fall on the ground.

Its chamber-loaded indicator was not originally intended to function as some kind of safety feature. Its purpose as designed was to provide a tactile cue that the weapon is ready to be fired.

If the chamber-loaded plunger is raised, the hammer cocked, and the thumb safety is in the Off position, the weapon is in Condition 1. You can check all three with a thumb.

[AtheistCrusader]

18. I agree, that is the only purpose of such indicators.

Quick verification the weapon is ready to fire. NOT to verify the weapon is unloaded/safe for disassembly.

[Eleanors38]

10. I think there are quite a few Democrats who don't really want a vote on gun control.