Using the Alabama analogy, would this be a civil or criminal action? If it's civil, then the manufacturer is going to get named in the suit under any circumstances- again, because of the Strict Liability provisions of prior case law. In other words, Alabama wouldn't have to make a law like that because it already exists as precident from other similar cases dating back to the turn of the last century.

But criminal? I can see your point there.

Yeah, then we could use some real weapons.



I knew all along you to be a warrior at heart Ace. You long for the good old days of hacking and cleaving, eh?

FYI- that's exactly what's happened. Why do you think that bartenders are supposed to quit serving patrons that are obviously intoxicated?

Ben, I don't own a gun and really do not like them, but I really have no problem with gun ownership. And I agree that most of those 80 million are responsible gun owners. I also believe that criminals who use guns need to be punished.

But guns are misused too often for there not to be a dialogue on the safety issue. Guns get stolen, so why not make a gun that can only be used by its legitimate owner? Even the most responsible gun owner might absentmindedly leave a loaded gun unattended. Why not make it impossible for it to be accidently discharged? Crimnals buy guns from gun dealers because, at the demand of gun manufacturers and owner organizations, there is no enforcable regulation. Why should the dealer and manufacturer not be held accountable for the actions they perpetrate?

Guns can be made as safe as cars. What is the objection to that?

Ace, there is the real and the hopeful. I hope for world peace, just as most of mankind has been hoping for probably 10,000 years. Then there's the reality- it's still 10,000 years away. I hope for a day when there will be no guns, but there are.

I don't think a criminal would get too far buying a gun in Texas. I bought a hunting rifle for my Son in Law two years ago and I had to wait three days to pick it up for my name cleared the background check. I don't think a criminal would be so patient.

Being allowed to bring a case in court does not mean that you will win the case. The Court was not ruling on the merits of the case they were merely stating that the plaintiffs have every right to bring their case to court. I have no problem with that.

Marine, not every state is as consciencious as Texas, nor are all gun dealers as scrupulous as yours. This is aside from the fact that rifles have uses beyond killing people. Pistols are the main concern of this thread, IMHO.

Exactly. The impression I have is that gun dealers and manufacturers don't want the safety issue to ever see the light of a courtroom... Stephen?

Concerning the safety issue. New handguns (revolvers) today are being developed with keyed lockouts that block the hammer from moving. Smith and Wesson, Taurus, Ruger, etc. Depending on the automatic, manual safeties are installed on them.
Safety for the most part though is strictly up to the gunowner. My guns for instance reside in a gun safe. The gun that I have for home defense however, is kept loaded and within easy access. If I had children in the house, I would use a table-mounted handgun safe that allows fast access.
Education however is the best form of safety where kids are concerned.

I realize that, but I can't compromise on this one. As some here already know I once owned a hand gun, and a former friend of mine, unbeknownst to me, took it, and committed a stupid senseless robbery, in which a man was killed.
You will not find a more conscientious gun owner than myself. I took very good care of all my fire arms, and I kept them secure. Yet this happened to me, so if it could happen to me then I know damn sure it could happen to any one of you.
So yes it's idealistic to believe there will never be another killing. However thats an ideal I can live with.

We still have driver's ed, collapsing frames, seat and shoulder harnesses, and airbags. Triple redundant safety should be the norm IMHO. If it were incredibly difficult (nothing can be made 'impossible) for an unauthorized use, what would be lost to the gunowner? If someone steals a car, or if someone uses the car unsafely and runs into another car, both cars have redundant safety systems that protect both the violator and the innocent. The recipient of an errant bullet, however, is more like the pedestrian- which makes redundant safety systems on a gun all the more important.

I do trust the diligent gunowner to use his or her weapons with great caution; it's those other idiots I worry about.

Trigger locks are now mandatory on all guns sold through or transferred by a dealer. However...You can't mandate the common sense of an individual. In other words!...You can lead a horse to water, but..........!

'Tis a bit of the pot calling the kettle black, don't you think? Methinks if you read the Federalist papers you'll find that the "militia", as the drafters of the Constitution meant it, refers to the citizenry in general.Statistically methinks there be far more deaths caused by automobiles in this country than by guns. 'Tis been repeated over and over, yet this keeps comin' up, eh?

Not really, I am just trying to figure out where you are coming from.

You claim you can defend yourself qutie well without a fire arm. I was interested in knowing how youcan do that. If it is with the martial arts, fine. I have many friends who are quite ample in them.

But my question was if a person dies in the act of perpetrating a crime agaist you when you are defending yourself. Do you have a problem with that, or did the person somewhat deserve it, in other words, his life over yours.

Then my second question is the person that cannot defend themselves by means other than a firearm. Do you think they should have no means to defend themselvs? Or how do you propose they gain that ability?

Winston, the answer to the 64 thousand dollar question, "where do those idiots get their guns" is "the diligent gun owners".

Maybe a better question is why do people want to kill people regardless of the weapon used.

Get rid of guns Ace. You will never get rid of sensless killing.

A friend of mine was very good in martial arts. He was big, played football in college on the O-Line. He hunted but did not carry a gun because he thought he could get out of all situations.

He was walking to his truck one night and as he got to the door a person hit him in the knee with a pipe. He dropped his keys and another person picked them up. Got into the truck and ran him over twice. Crushed his skull. Hard to tell if he had a CC permit and a gun on him if he woud have lived. He at least would have had a better chance. Possibly the gun would have been stolen too, we will never know.

You know, I've held back from asking this ever since the first time you told that story. I am really curious now. If the gun was indeed secure how did he get access to it? None of my friends know the combination to my pistol box and nobody but me knows where the spare key is to the rifle locker (the main key is always on my person or within immediate reach).

Read 'em all, and it still holds true. Since 'militia' is not defined in the Constitution, it can be defined by the states; if the states wanted to make guns available only to militias, and they defined militia, there would be no 2nd Amendment issue, methinks. No state has ever tested it, so there is no precident. However several law journals- Harvard, Duke, and Berkeley among others- have discussed this exact scenario. No state has the guts to try, though.


That's not the issue; there used to be more deaths caused by cars, but the safety equipment has made them less deadly. Guns can be made safer than they are, and there is no reasonable argument against doing so. Again, I have absolutely no problem with people owning guns, and I agree that guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people. Some of those people need not have died if there had been additional safety features. I think manditory locking devices is an excellent start, just like safety belts were an excellent start in making automobiles less deadly.

My point exactly! However, if guns can be made unusable except by the legitimate owner, then the idiots who steal them or aquire them illegally won't be able to use them.

Reality, Ace, is that guns will never be illegal here in the United States, and there is no way that, even if they were, we would be able to confiscate all the guns now in circulation. That being the case, the next best thing is to make them unusable by anyone who is not supposed to be using them.

And I am sorry you're friend left you with such a terrible burden; again, had he been unable to use the gun even after breaking open the gun safe, then your friend would not be in prison, a man would still be alive, and your soul would not be carrying such a heavy load. Everyone wins...

They are experimenting with "user only" technology, but so far nothing is working that wouldn't impede the use of the gun by the owner.
Guns that are on the market now would rely on trigger locks and built in hammer blocks. I personally would not buy one of these guns.
You also have to look at the amount of accidental deaths by gun vs. other things.

My question to both is why? Why would you not buy such a gun, and why would it be necessary to look at a ratio or matrix of the various methods of accidental deaths? What has a death by broken bungee cord got to do with a death by gunshot?

Mostly because these features make guns less reliable. An unreliable gun is a danger to the user.

Accidental deaths from firearms are pretty rare. Often, what is termed an accident is actually negligence or just plain stupidity. Now, if we could only outlaw those...

The same can be said for most accidents- rarely is it mechanical failure. My question then, is: how hard is the firearms industry working to create safety features that will prevent unintended or unlawful discharge without making the pistol unreliable to the owner?

If they are working diligently toward that end, then kudos and 'nuf said. If not, then should there be some sort of timeline for development of such safety systems, such as the timeline for the development of reliable airbags?

I wouldn't buy one Winston because I don't need one. Most of the guns I buy are older revolvers that do not have safeties. I rely heavily on my common sense to maintain the safety of my guns, the same way my father did when I was growing up. Education trumps everything, IMO. I don't have a problem with passive safety, but I hold the line a government mandated feel good legislation. As I have said...I have no problem with mandated trigger locks, and harsh penalties for those that that allow an un-safe gun to injure.
This is hard for you to understand because you are not part of the gun culture, but to us this is elementary.
As to the comparison in accidental deaths?...Guns are way down the list.
Most of this has been explained in this forum if you do a search.

You know Stephen, this is the first time I've had anyone explain the issues involved in a way that wasn't so offensive as to be useless.

I tend to agree that federal 'feel good' legislation would be (like most of that kind of legislation) useless. I would draw the line, however, at the state level; it is a right the states have by virtue of the Constitution, and the public interest is above the interest of any business or lobbying effort. States cannot abrogate that or any right to corporate interests. Thus, while accidents may be way down the list, there is always room to move them further down, and it is the states mandate to see that it is done; I think, however, we're only talking about a few degrees of separation.

Best wishes, and thanks,

WS

I can agree with much you've said above.
FYI Winston.

Accident as a Cause of Death
Accidents are the third leading cause of death for males in the United States, but only the seventh leading cause of death for women. The following tables summarize statistics concerning types of accidental death.

TYPES OF ACCIDENTAL DEATHS, USA 2002
(MVA = Motor Vehicle Accident) ACCIDENT PERCENT
(1) Motor vehicle (MVA) 44.3%
(2) Falls 17.8%
(3) Poison,liq/solid 13.0%
(4) Drowning 3.9%
(5) Fires, Burns,Smoke 3.4%
(6) Medical/Surgical Complication 3.1%
(7) Other land transport 1.5%
(8) Firearms 0.8%
(9) Other (nontransport) 17.8%



[Source: National Vital Statistics Report, Volume 50, Number 15 (September 2002)]
(For a more itemized list of death rates for accidental death, see What Are the Odds of Dying? (National Safety Council). For breakdowns by age, see Leading Causes of Accidental Death in the United States.)
The five leading causes of fatal accidental death have remained the same between 1970 and 1998, and these top 5 account for 80% of all accidental deaths. Approximately forty percent of deaths from acts of nature are due to floods. Approximately forty percent of fire victims die in their sleep.

Motor vehicle fatalities are the leading cause of death for people between ages 1-29, and the rate is particularly high between the ages of 15-24. A 16-year-old has 3 times the crash risk of an 18-year-old and 7 times the crash risk of a 25-year-old.

Driving under the influence of alcohol is the most important cause of death in automobile accidents -- followed by driver fatigue. The percentage of traffic fatalities attributed to alcohol dropped from 57.2% in 1982 to 45% in 1992. The figure is probably much higher, because amounts of alcohol below the legal level of intoxication (all amounts of alcohol) reduce cognitive & physical function. More than a third of pedestrians killed by a motor vehicle fatalities in 1992 were intoxicated.

For non-motor vehicle accidents in the United States between 1975-1995 33%, ethanol intoxication accounted for 32% of fatal falls, 42% of fatal fires/burns, 34% of fatal drownings and 29% of fatal poisonings. 32% of homicide victims and 23% of suicide victims were intoxicated [ANNALS OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE 33(6):659-701 (1999)]. (The most common cause of poisoning is carbon monoxide.)

Drivers of Sport-Utility Vehicles (SUVs) are especially vulnerable to fatal rollovers. Rollover accidents account for only 3% of all U.S. motor-vehicle accidents, but they cause nearly a third of all vehicle-occupant fatalities. And SUV occupant is 3 times as likely to die as a result of a rollover than an occupant of a passenger car.

The chances of dying in an automobile accident in 1953 was four times greater than in 2003, based on fatalities per mile driven in the United States. Better roads & medical care along with tougher drunk-driving laws have been attribued to some of this difference. But there was considerable improvement in vehicle safety features over the 50-year period. Significant safety improvements included power brakes, front disc brakes, four-wheel antilock brake systems, radial-ply tires, penetration-resistant windshields, padded dashboards, collapsible stearing columns, auto-body structures that crumple around passenger compartments, lap-and-shoulder safety belts, dual air bags and sun visors. Digital cameras and computer-controlled navigation devices should further improve driving safety.

Road fatalities in the US fell from 52,627 in 1970 to 42,116 yearly while in the same period road fatalities in Germany fell from 21,000 to 6,949 per year. A large part of the difference is attributed to Electronic Stability Control (ECS) which is found in half of German cars, but only 6% of those in the USA.

On a per-mile basis the risk of dying on a 1,000 mile airline flight are about equivalent to the risks of dying while driving 1,000 miles, because most flying deaths occur on take-off and landing. (Longer flights are safer.) Commuter planes crash more than twice as often as planes of large airlines -- and the crash rate is Alaska is considerably higher due to so many inexperienced bush-pilots. Less pilot experience is also the reason given for the greater danger from commuter flights.

The death rate per driven mile is more than 35 times higher for motorcycles than it is for cars. The per-mile death rate is also higher for bicyclists. Two-thirds of bicycle fatalities occur due to traffic violations and 90% involve collisions with motor vehicles.

http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/causes.html...hClock#data_usa

Thats true Winston, but I have yet found anyone, other than yourself, in these discussions, that even want to consider that.
Most gun laws are based on that realty. They know as well as I do that I'm not going to go on say Stevens property and get his guns, no matter what the law says, but by the same token, Steven, just speaking hypothetically, had better make sure and maintain the safety of that weapon or lose the right to possess it.
Now that to me sounds fair.

I would look at a law that penalizes a gun owner if negligence can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It would have to be spelled out very clearly as to what defines a secured weapon. This however should be the state's decision, IMO.

You and I have never been very far apart on this issue. I understand that in your rural setting that you may need your guns for protection, thats fine with me because I have no intention of coming around to look you up. It's when, (and we've also had this discussion before ) and if they pose a threat to me and mine that we have a conflict.

I would agree. My guns have never posed a threat to anyone (so far), and that would define a law-abiding citizen. However...Let's say that somehow my gun got into the hands of a BG, and was used to harm you or yours. If it could be proved that I hadn't taken reasonable care in securing the weapon, then I could possibly be found culpable. I believe that this is an issue of personal responsibility that I constantly harp on.

And, at the risk of sounding hypocritical, I have, to a point, agreed with you about social ills and their affect on the situation, but to say one or the other is the main problem means we are fooling ourselves. It's a combination of many things but until we start breaking down barriers between us we will never get to the root of the problem. Speaking in general terms.
It's not so much what the law will do it's what is on your concience for the rest of your life. For me I think about a young man who's life was cut short, another who is in jail , and me, who if I would have done just one thing different none of that would have happened. It's a price to pay and for me it wasn't worth it.
I believe all states concider driving a car a priviledge, thats how I forsee guns. Maybe if they are treated in such a manner people wouldn't be so reckless with them.

Methinks that would be fine, but 'twould also have to do away with the free passes given to some individuals under local and/or state laws, eh? Apply the same to all across the board is what I'd wanna see.

Here in Little Rhody a couple years ago, because of the RI "Police Officer's Bill of Rights", methinks somethin' you or I would've been criminally charged for resulted in only a 30 day paid suspension for a policeman. An East Providence officer failed to clear his weapon on returnin' to the station as was procedure, then while horsin' around pointed it at someone and fatally shot 'im. Thanks to state law he was only subject to an administrative review and punitive action.

Yes fd if you'll remember I posted that story or one just like it, here in this forum some time ago.
I agree whole heartedly, when it comes to guns no one should be above the law.
We put to much stock in hero worship, an officer of the law is still a human being and no better than the rest, therefore the punishment should fit the crime regardless of who they are.

Interesting discussion. This an issue that I have come to understand much better through this forum and I have moderated my position as a result. And, ironically (?), one of the things that forced me to a more centrist position on this issue was reading "A Credible Threat", the novel by Winston Smith. Re: the potentially reckless power of the government against its citizenry.

What a lot of people don't understand (in fact..most of them), is just how little training and understanding the police have in their firearms. Most consider it unnecessary weight on their duty belt. If they are lucky they have qualification twice a year, and very few train on their own in defensive scenarios issues at all. Leave it to say that more civilians than police are intimately familiar with their guns.

So I guess these folks just didn't want to protect themselves?

http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/5661207.html

Incidentally, this is Minneapolis, the quiet Midwestrn college town I live in.