|
This is a rebuttal to an article on The Brady Campaign's website. I'm extremely pro-gun, for those who don't know, and I hate the garbage they spew. I know I'm rehashing everything other pro-gunners have already said, but I don't care. I have to voice my opinion in a way that anyone can hear me. So yeah. Here you go. If I offend any anti-gunners with this rant, that's what they get. :-D Imagine a car made of a metal so inferior that, if hit at low speeds, passengers are easily crushed. Or imagine a car that doesn't have seat belts or locks on its doors and whose doors are so flimsy, a child could easily open them and fall out while the car is moving. Is this car unsafe? Of course it is. Should the car manufacturer change the design of the car to prevent such accidents from occurring? Of course it should. But suppose the manufacturer says that these accidents are not its responsibility. It says the car functions exactly as it's supposed to: it drives fine and it gets you where you want to go. The manufacturer says that it is the passengers' responsibility to make sure they don't fall out and that it is the driver's responsibility to make sure the car doesn't get hit. Is that a reasonable argument to make? Of course it's not. Yet a comparable problem exists today in America with guns. There is no comparison. Cars are transports-- guns are made for destroying things. Your job with a rifle is to not destroy something you don't want to. The primary safety of a firearm should be yourself. Every year in this country, tens of thousands of people are killed or injured by guns. Many of these shootings are unintentional or suicides which could be prevented if the gun industry were more responsible in the design of its products. Hold on. Why is it the government or law enforcement's job to stop suicide? If someone wants to kill himself, and he doesn't have access to a gun, you think that's going to stop him? He will slit his wrists or drink poison. Thousands more are shot in homicides -- and even many of these shootings could be prevented if the gun industry changed its business practices. Unfortunately, the gun industry refuses to recognize its responsibility to make its products safer, choosing instead to place the sole burden on the user Where it should be. -- even when that user is a four-year-old child. So you're saying children shouldn't be responsible for anything? It's the parent's job to keep a firearm out of reach of young children... not the gun industry's. On a similar note, children should be taught about firearms, what they can do, and proper safety so they don't kill their friend by accident... shielding them from guns can and will only cause problems if you have a firearm in your house. The gun industry manufactures and markets the only widely available consumer products designed to kill. Unfortunately, thanks to the power of the gun lobby, the gun industry also manufactures and markets the only widely available product for which there are no consumer product safety standards. In fact, when the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) was created by Congress in 1972 to protect the public against unreasonable risk of injury associated with consumer products, guns were specifically exempted from the CPSC's jurisdiction. The CPSC monitors safety standards for all manner of consumer goods -- from clothing to toys to lawn mowers -- but not guns. That's because guns are designed to kill, as you just said. They're not supposed to be safe, it should be the consumer's responsibility not to unintentionally destroy something that they don't want to destroy. Nor does this responsibility belong to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). The ATF has jurisdiction over the commerce of guns, such as licensing of dealers, standards for purchasers, and regulating sales and transfers, but it does not and cannot set manufacturing safety standards for firearms. Yeah? As a result, there are more safety standards governing the manufacture of a toy gun or for a teddy bear than there are for a real gun. Because they're just that-- toys. Guns are not toys. The only standards a gun manufacturer has to comply with are ones the manufacturer sets for itself. And unfortunately, there are far too many gun makers who don't care if their products are poorly made, lack basic safety features, or pose an unreasonable risk to the public. Unreasonable risk to the public? You've failed to give any examples whatsoever for anything thus far. The industry does not care because it doesn't have to: there are no laws which require it to make sure its products are not unnecessarily dangerous. Which is how it should be! It's not the manufacturer's responsibility to keep people from dying accidentally! Moreover, the gun industry has been irresponsible in the way it markets and sells its products, failing to maintain standards for distributors which would prevent gun trafficking, misleading consumers about the use of guns in self-defense, Misleading about the use of guns in self-defense? How are they misleading people? Vermont has the second lowest crime rate of any U.S. state because citizens are allowed to freely carry concealed weapons. and deliberately marketing products in such a way as to attract criminals. "Deliberately"? How so? Because of the inherently dangerous nature of its products, the gun industry has a special responsibility to take into account the public's health and safety in conducting its business activities. Why? The consumer knows what a gun is before buying it. He knows it can kill someone, and if he doesn't... he's probably too stupid to own one and will probably kill himself with it. There are steps that the gun industry can and should take which would reduce the number of gun deaths and injuries in our society. Okay, I have to admit something... I have no idea who "the gun industry" is. You're generalizing too much. Are you talking about the dealers or the manufacturers? The Brady Campaign and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence seek to change industry practices which contribute directly to gun-related violence -- both criminal and unintentional. I said it once, and I'll say it again... It's not the manufacturer's or the dealer's responsibility to keep someone from accidentally killing himself or a friend. These practices include all aspects of the business, from design and manufacturing standards to marketing and advertising strategies to sales practices. Virtually every gun on the illegal market is first acquired from the manufacturer by a federally licensed gun dealer as part of a legal transaction. Guns then enter the illegal market in several ways: by theft from dealers who lack adequate security systems; in bulk purchases by gun traffickers or straw purchasers who re-sell them on the streets to criminals; or in purchases by prohibited purchasers from gun dealers who either knowingly or negligently fail to check the purchaser's identification adequately. True. Guns are also supplied to the illegal market through gun shows, where it is easy for prohibited purchasers and gun traffickers to find each other and where the unregulated sale of firearms through private sales is common. It is the responsibility of the industry, from the manufacturer to the wholesaler to the retail gun dealer, to work together to limit the opportunity for guns to cross over from the legal to the illegal market. It isn't even possible for the manufacturer to prevent illegal sale. They sell it to the dealer then it's not their problem any more. The industry needs to set standards for dealers, train dealers to recognize gun traffickers and straw purchasers, and hold gun stores accountable if they knowingly or recklessly sell guns to criminals. Again, "the industry"? It seems you're not talking about the manufacturer or the dealer... Gun manufacturers are well aware that the lack of safety features in the design of firearms leads to unintentional shootings, suicide, and the criminal use of stolen firearms. Yes, to the first, which is because the consumer is uneducated or simply stupid. The second has no position here... safety features are simply not going to stop a person intent on killing himself! The third is ludicrous. Period. Criminals don't care about safeties. Safeties are nothing. A safety is a switch or a button, not a lock stopping you from firing completely. Besides, 80-90% of all firearms have safety switches or buttons anyway. Many of these features are readily available and inexpensive, such as a load indicator, which tells the user that the gun is still loaded, or a magazine disconnect safety, which prevents the gun from firing if the ammunition magazine is removed. Even "childproofing" or "personalizing" a gun can be relatively easy and inexpensive by including a locking mechanism that prevents unauthorized users from firing it. A load indicator is simply looking inside the chamber. The first rule of firearm safety is to always assume a firearm is loaded anyway. A trigger lock just slows you from readying the firearm to protect yourself or your home... It could be the difference between life and death when an armed criminal breaks into your house. There are two easy ways to make sure nobody is accidentally hurt or killed with a firearm. A. Learn proper firearm safety and follow it strictly. B. Keep out of the reach of your children and make sure they know proper firearm safety as well. Unfortunately, only a very small percentage of guns have such features. I quote, "Chamber load indicators are another brilliant but useless idea. The clarification defines a chamber load indicator as “a feature that allows the operator physically to see the round in the chamber.” Theoretically, it’ll tell you whether or not the gun is loaded at any given time. Unless for some reason it doesn’t work. As Kopel points out, this will also destroy the credibility of one of the most important gun safety teachings ever, namely, to always treat a gun as if it’s loaded. Human nature being what it is, people will start to trust the indicator and not bother to check the weapon, which is just asking for an accidental discharge." Source: The Layman’s Guide to the Smith & Wesson Agreement
Even though they know that such features would reduce gun injuries and deaths, gun manufacturers refuse to make such changes to all of their products. Instead, gun manufacturers have made smaller, more powerful weapons, putting profits ahead of safety. I probably shouldn't even say anything, because you know what I'll say. It's the consumer's job to not destroy something that they don't want to destroy. The much more reliable alternative to a load indicator is—guess what—looking inside the chamber with your own eyes! Gun manufacturers must innovate for safety — only supplying the market with guns that, by design, minimize the risk of unintentional injury, suicide and the criminal utility of a stolen firearm. I still don't understand why suicides are the government's or law enforcement's responsibility. Gun manufacturers have continually designed and supplied to the market firearms which are better suited to criminal than legitimate use. How? Criminal and legitimate use are completely different. They are good in both areas. For example, assault weapons and low quality, easily concealable "junk guns", or Saturday Night Specials, have been manufactured without regard to how they might be used — Yeah? They're guns. They destroy stuff. If someone has a criminal record, they don't get guns... we can't prevent people from committing crimes unless they already have a criminal record. But even then we still can't stop 100% of crimes. both categories of firearms are disproportionately used in crime. The majority of crimes are committed with handguns, not assault weapons. Furthermore, there is simply no legitimate need for cop-killer bullets and mail-order parts which allow someone to assemble an untraceable gun without a serial number, both products of the industry. "Cop-killer" bullets don't exist. Bullets are bullets, and "assault weapons" are used for hunting, target-shooting, and competition, contrary to popular belief. What gives people the idea that "assault weapons" have no legitimate use? I own a Bushmaster XM15-E2S carbine. Sure, it's not an "assault weapon", but y'all want it to be one. Anyway, I'm not suddenly a murderous madman, all I ever do with it is shoot at paper targets and cans. Because firearms are often used in crime, it is incumbent on gun manufacturers to constantly evaluate the risks to public health and safety of the products they design. Guns don't have minds. They're not computers. They especially aren't telepathic. The guns cannot stop a criminal from using them illegally. The industry must stop supplying the market with guns which are attractive to criminals and which have no legitimate civilian use. See above. Quite frankly, you're completely wrong. The decision to bring a gun into the home should be well-informed. Well informed to whom? To the government? So they know who owns firearms when they decide to take them away from all the legitimate, law-abiding citizens so they are completely helpless against an armed criminal? The message conveyed by some advertisements for firearms is that the purchase of a handgun will make a person or home safer. In fact, the opposite is true: guns are rarely used for self-protection and having a gun in the home increases the risk of homicide, suicide and unintentional injury. In fact, the opposite is true: guns are quite often used for self-protection and having a gun in the home decreases the risk of homicide. Furthermore, some manufacturers advertise their products in such a way as to appeal to criminals (such as boasting a fingerprint-resistant finish). That's so the gun doesn't look bad because you got your greasy, spaghetti sauce-covered hands all over it. Gun manufacturers and gun sellers must be truthful when advertising their products. Advertisements for firearms should: 1) not make claims which suggest that guns in the home enhance personal security; 2) avoid messages which are likely to make the industry's products more desirable to the criminals or others prone to violent behavior; 3) not be placed in publications with a substantial youth readership; and 4) include warnings about the risks of guns in the home. I thought you just said they should be truthful. Conclusion: The "Brady Bunch" knows nothing and needs a couple garbage bags for all the trash they spew from their mouths. ~Linus |
