Gun Control Proposals Off the Mark
"Guns don't kill people..." But some anti-gun proposals might kill the gun manufacturing industry.
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
Writing in the Los Angeles Times, Jeffrey Fagan, professor of law and public health at Columbia University, and Stephen D. Sugarman, a professor of law at UC Berkeley, propose in the wake of the Supreme Court decision in Heller, that gun manufacturers should be subject to what they call “performance-based regulation.” According to Fagan and Sugarman, gun manufacturers should be forced “to deal with the negative effects of their products in ways that promote the public good.”
They claim that this should occur because 12,000 Americans will be shot to death by firearms this year. They don’t cite the source of that impressive-sounding figure. We must assume they are referring to homicides only, because a far greater number — roughly 17,000 or so — will die in gun-related suicides this year. This is based upon CDC statistics as cited by the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, which noted that 55% of gun-related deaths in 2005 (the most recent year for which statistics were available) were suicides, up from 52% in 2004.
Why would they ignore the cause of the majority of firearm deaths in this country to focus on the second-leading cause? This rather bizarre focus is purposeful but required. Suicides are intensely personal acts which cannot be blamed on other individuals, nor on the implement used to cause death. Fagan and Sugarman would rather not deal with the complexities of admitting that these suicides expose their scheme as being predicated upon blaming inanimate objects for the willful actions of human beings.
Firearms manufacturers are obsessed with two design goals: safety and reliability.
Firearms must be reliable 100% of the time. If a weapon is unreliable and fails when it is needed most it could cost the weapon holder — a police officer with a pistol or a soldier with his rifle — his life.
As for safety concerns, few devices are designed with as much security in mind as firearms. Firearms have multiple safety devices designed to prevent an accidental discharge, from frame- or slide-mounted thumb safeties, to grip safeties, to half-cock mechanisms. Most modern gun designs include these features or others such as firing pin safeties or even trigger-mounted safeties. Guns can also have cross-bolt safeties, magazine disconnects, chamber-loaded indicators, cocking indicators, or even keyed internal locks. Those are just the various safety features that can be found on the weapons themselves. It is no exaggeration to note that modern firearms can be dropped, kicked, thrown, or run over with a vehicle without going off. They only go “bang” when the trigger is pulled.
A specific example of these kinds of features is found on the Smith & Wesson M&P series of semi-automatics, which possess passive safeties that prevent the gun from firing if dropped or sharply struck, a disconnect device that requires the trigger to be fully depressed to fire, and the availability of a keyed internal lock that locks the weapon and/or a magazine disconnect which renders it unable to fire without a magazine in place, even if a bullet is in the chamber and the trigger is pulled. Many other firearms have similar internal safety features as part of the gun itself.
Bob Owens blogs at Confederate Yankee.
| Comment |  Digg This |
 del.icio.us |
 |
 |
 PJM Home |
18 Comments
1. David Thomson:The leftist agenda will employ every trick in the book to take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. A vote for Barack “Barry” Obama, for all practical purposes, is a vote for gun control. The less than perfect John McCain is the only game in town. Never forget that a President Obama has the right to pick federal judges. These appointments almost certainly will not be to our liking. One’s fear of Obama should be much greater than their possible irritation with Senator McCain.
Jul 1, 2008 - 2:35 am 2. Donna B.:Their first step in this effort to drive gun manufacturers out of business. That’s what this article is all about - a backdoor plan since the frontdoor was closed by Congress.
Jul 1, 2008 - 3:31 am 3. hootin:automobiles kill a lot more than guns. these people wanting to control gun are nuts. some people would vote for obama knowing iran, north krorea,syrea are backing obama. they would rather see the country go down than vote republican
Jul 1, 2008 - 6:00 am 4. Smarty:What we need to do is recognize that Jews, having been the supreme victims of gun control in 1930’s Germany, are the last people who should be supporting it now. These guys are mentally ill, suicidal Jews and should be “tut tut”ed and lead back into therapy.
Jul 1, 2008 - 6:24 am 5. Dark Helmet:What we need is control of the goverment, not more goverment control.
Jul 1, 2008 - 7:00 am 6. RE:Keeps you NRA memeberships current! They do a good job guarding against indirect backdoor assaults on your rights.
Jul 1, 2008 - 7:22 am 7. RA:50,000 people will die due to car accidents. So car manufacturers should be liable. This goes for swimming pools, bath tubes, snow shoveling, and on and on.
These people are evil.
Jul 1, 2008 - 7:35 am 8. Marc:This court case was the perfect example of why you should vote conservative regardless of a disdain for McCain.
McCain needs a speech on law enforcement and the judiciary. It would really behoove him to run on the following messages: comprehensive tax reform; a conservative judiciary; purposeful and meaningful immigration enforcement or reform; and substantive entitlement reform. If he were to lasso some of these Wall Street cowboys, the country would probably right itself.
We should remove the “republican” brand and start calling him conservative. It may remove some of the negative associations.
Jul 1, 2008 - 8:28 am 9. HereAndNow:This is just stereotypical of those who place their entire lives into the hands of a “benevolent” government. A government who will always look after their best interests. A government that knows best how to feed, cloth, house, entertain, and pontificate on their behalf. A government of the Marxists, by the communists and for the proletariat. Hum, I wonder why the USSR fell apart if their “benevolent” government did such a GREAT job? After all, how did that go, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” or something to that effect wasn’t it? Oh, that’s right, the “proletariat” became tired of supporting lazy bums and not getting anything in return for their good works.
“In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
“In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
“Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
“China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
“Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
“Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
“Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million ‘educated’ people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.”
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, ask them “Who do YOU want to round up and exterminate?” With guns, we are citizens. Without them, we are subjects.
http://www.rense.com/general/massex.htm
Jul 1, 2008 - 8:30 am 10. Mike O:Negative effects of products only apply if the products do not work as proscribed. If I pop a couple of .40s in a burgler in my house, or put one through my own brain pan, or even if I shoot a cheating spouse, the product works as proscribed. Are we going to sue cutlery, baseball bat, or chainsaw manufacturers if murders are committed with them? No, we’re going to punish the person who carries out the act as appropriate.
Jul 1, 2008 - 8:43 am 11. Pat:Mike, I think you mean “prescribed”. “Proscribed” means “banned”.
Jul 1, 2008 - 10:22 am 12. fred:These two totalitarians have absolutely no intent to attach the concept of safety of design and use to guns of all kinds. Their intent is obvious to anyone with an understanding of the context of their crusade. Only the gullible fall for this deception.
I used to be a Marxist thirty years ago, and I left the Left in 1987, so I know the socialist movement, the academic Gramscian Marxist scene like the back of my hand. Trust me, I know people like this. There is more than meets the eye. Of course they want control over just about every aspect of our lives. They WANT to dictate to us how live. But there is another intent behind their unrelenting anti-2nd Amendment campaign: they only barely whisper it to each other and they NEVER speak about it in public around anyone who is not a trusted comrade. The Left fears an armed citizenry, because if they get full, complete control of all three branches of the government they fear a revolution/civil war. They fear an uprising by armed citizens, law enforcement, and most of the military (they will manage to somehow cobble together a few Praetorian Units)against their regime. We will want to restore the Republic. They want to destroy it. They cannot and will not destroy it if we are armed and can escort them to the gallows.
Jul 1, 2008 - 12:18 pm 13. Kay:Why anyone recognizes a ‘degree’ from Berkley as being a viable academic establishment is a mystery to me.
Jul 1, 2008 - 12:22 pm 14. BigBird:When seconds count, the police are only minutes away… Don’t care to protect my family like that…
Jul 2, 2008 - 1:12 am 15. dirigible:“Given latitude, they will regulate all your choices, trading away your responsibilities, desires, and individuality for an inert, bland life that is utterly safe”
But they can’t even deliver on this premise. Where has gun control made anyone safer?
Jul 2, 2008 - 10:16 am 16. Smarty:Everyone needs to read what Fred wrote, it is the truth, and the truest reason why we must always keep our guns and maintain our onery streak.
Jul 2, 2008 - 10:59 am 17. NB:Going after manufacturers under the guise of increased “device safety”? That’s funny. Me and my S&W M&P .40 will sit at home feeling very safe thank you very much. An idiot or sociopath with a gun, an idiot or sociopath behind the wheel, and idiot or sociopath in a boat…all these can kill people (on purpose or otherwise). Now can anyone point out the common thread among them?
Jul 2, 2008 - 11:06 pm 18. deguello:Look, why even argue with these despicable shills for a totalitarian fuure? The nra should do a legal private investigation of every ‘progresive” gun controller: ie;daily routines,adresses, net worth,then they should then release this information to violent criminals about to be released from jail. Let the thugs prey on the progresive scum,and one way, or another, the’ll shut up about taking away our arms. Liberal papers have already released the names and addreses ofconcealed-carry permit holders in many jurisdictions, let’s pay the liberals back!
Jul 5, 2008 - 9:55 am