Gun makers skimp on safety, report claims

[grayrace]

Gun makers skimp on safety, report claims

DETROIT -- Tens of millions of guns in America share design flaws that put their owners and those around them in unnecessary jeopardy, a four-month Detroit News investigation found.

Firearm manufacturers, long aware of the dangers, have made no concerted, industrywide effort to improve safety.

Many firearm manufacturers ignore technology -- including their own -- that would make guns safer and less apt to accidentally discharge. Internal memos, gun patents and employee depositions show that many of these safety features are cheap, easily installed and have been available for nearly 100 years.

[Superfly]

1. You're too late. This has already been discussed.

I've alerted to the duplication.

[grayrace]

2. I didn't see it,. I hope mods will lock other thread and leave a shorter

open for those on dial ups.

[Superfly]

3. I couldn't find it, anyways. Apologies.

nt

[demsrule4life]

4. Should be a dupe

we have heard it over and over again how the press don't know shit about firearms. I have been handling firearms for forty years and one thing I have learned is guns don't go off accidentally, you have to pull the trigger.

[Superfly]

5. I could have sworn I saw it someplace....

Maybe somebody else has the link.

BTW, did you get my PM?

[grayrace]

6. the press knows quite a bit about firearms

as do many universties studying the problem right now

http://www.jhsph.edu/gunpolicy/US_factsheet.pdf">John Hopkins

about 3% in 2000 were unintentional.

[demsrule4life]

7. It still is the same

if you are holding a gun in your hand it will not go off unless you pull the trigger. The only gun safety you need is to keep your finger off the trigger unless you want the gun to discharge. It has been a basic safety technique for 500 years now.

[grayrace]

8. drop fires

n/t

[demsrule4life]

10. Almost all semi auto firearms

have firing pin locks that can only be disengaged when the trigger is pulled. So if you drop a gun and even if the sear should break and the hammer falls the gun won't fire. I do own a couple of Colt Govt model .45's with no firing pin safety's and in those pistols I keep a new firing pin spring installed to insure it won't happen, even if I should drop it 30 feet off a roof.

[DoNotRefill]

21. and how many drop-fires are there annually?

the only guns that don't have hammer safeties built into them are guns designed and marketed as replicas of antiques for collectors.

If somebody made a collector's replica of a model T ford, should it have crash-resistant bumpers, shoulder-strap seatbelts, and be able to go 95 MPH?

[liberalhistorian]

26. That may be true as far as

adults are concerned, but what about children who get their hands on them, (because their idiot parents or the idiot parents of their friends leave them lying around or don't lock them up in a safe place) and who don't know any better?

THAT is the main reason for the advocacy of safety features, and why they're necessary. Adults can take care of themselves, but children can't. And there is NO REASON for not implementing these safety features and measures, it would cost the gun industry very little to do so.

[slackmaster]

27. Keeping them away from kids is necessary

Regardless of what safety features do or do not exist on a particular gun.

And there is NO REASON for not implementing these safety features and measures, it would cost the gun industry very little to do so.

See reply #22. I want those features available but not required. (And they are already available.)

[liberalhistorian]

46. Yes, that is certainly true that

keeping guns away from kids is necessary no matter what, as is teaching children proper gun safety measures, handling measures, etc., etc.

But the problem is that, while the majority of gun owners (including my stepfather, brother-in-law, and ex-boyfriend, with whom I'm still friends) are responsible and knowledgeable concerning safety and handling measures, there are many who are not and who don't seem to care about the dangers and irresponsibility of leaving loaded guns around where children can get their hands on them. Unfortunate, but true.

And we all know that when an industry is not required to implement certain features and measures, they generally won't do so no matter how little it costs. I simply do not understand what the big deal is about requiring safety features on guns. In no way does it prevent or forbid responsible citizens from owning guns, or impinge on their right to do so.

[slackmaster]

60. See my reply #22 for a different perspective

Some "safety features" limit functionality that users want. They all add to the cost and complexity of a weapon. Would you mandate that everyone who buys a new car be forced to purchase a child safety seat even if they have no kids?

I say let the market drive what safety features are incorporated by whom and when. People should have the option to buy a gun with a magazine disconnect safety or a gun without one. I would not want to have anyone caught in a situation where they are faced with a threat and have a gun and one round of ammo in their hands but no magazine, and are unable to fire the weapon.

[iverglas]

63. just 2 cents

I know and care nothing about the specifics of any mechanism or rule that might be raised here. It is the logic I bemoan.


"I say let the market drive what safety features are incorporated by whom and when. People should have the option to buy a gun with a magazine disconnect safety or a gun without one. I would not want to have anyone caught in a situation where they are faced with a threat and have a gun and one round of ammo in their hands but no magazine, and are unable to fire the weapon."

Well, "I" say let the market drive what safety features are incorporated by whom and when. People should have the option to buy a car with seatbelts or a car without seatbelts. I would not want to have anyone caught in a situation where they are in an accident and are unable to get out of a burning car because they have their seatbelt on.

Meanwhile, we just won't think about the children of the people who buy those cars without seatbelts, and any other passengers in their cars who will not have the option of being protected from accidental harm by wearing seatbelts, and what will very likely happen to them if they are in an accident.

(I had a client who had a car with seatbelts, she just didn't think they were necessary. Her four preschool children were all riding untethered in the back of the station wagon -- just as they undoubtedly had done dozens and probably hundreds of times before. That time they were in an accident. Then they were all dead.)

It may be that there are factors that make firearm safety features not closely analogous to car seatbelts (or childproof medicine containers, or fences around the neighbours' swimming pool, or vaccinations, or any of a variety of other things we mandate to protect children and others and that undoubtedly cause inconvenience or even some rare greater harm for some people). But "I say let the market drive the decision" doesn't seem to be dependent on those factors, and as it stands it could just as well (i.e. badly) be applied to car seatbelts and any of the rest.

.

[slackmaster]

67. Briefly, why your car analogy doesn't work for me

Car accidents are often the result of factors beyond the control of the driver, i.e. the behavior of others, unexpected road conditions, acts of God, etc. Driving in traffic is a very complex activity. Guns are simple enough to operate that a person who exercises proper control over one can guarantee with near absolute certainty that no accident is going to occur. Guns are also small enough that they can be secured so that unauthorized people cannot gain access to them without taking extraordinary measures like breaking into a house or breaching a gun safe.

I say with confidence that my personal firearms are sufficiently under control at all times that addition of a magazine disconnect safety on, for example, my 1911 pistol would provide no additional margin of safety for anyone.

I had a client who had a car with seatbelts, she just didn't think they were necessary. Her four preschool children were all riding untethered in the back of the station wagon -- just as they undoubtedly had done dozens and probably hundreds of times before. That time they were in an accident. Then they were all dead.

That's very tragic. Today's newspaper here has an account of a teenage couple who were both killed in a car crash. Neither the unlicensed 15-year-old driver nor his girlfriend passenger were wearing seat belts. Presence of a safety device does not ensure that people will use it. As has been pointed out by other contributors here, a chamber-loaded indicator may mean nothing to the people most likely to be involved in an accidental shooting: Unauthorized, untrained, ignorant people who should not be handling the weapon in the first place. Control unauthorized access to guns and accidents become vanishingly rare.

[iverglas]

68. I am somewhat sympathetic to the argument

It is my own firm conviction that if a thing is designed so that an idiot can use it, an idiot will indeed use it. Large numbers of idiots will in fact probably use it.

This is my major complaint with "daytime driving lights", for instance. Idiots use them ... instead of turning on their headlights (which turns on the taillights) when driving in a snowstorm on a winding two-lane highway at dusk, because hey, they can see. You have just met one of my pet peeves. I also have a private campaign underway (which I conduct by muttering at my passenger as I drive) to have people's speed limits in kilometres tied to their IQs. A person with the average IQ of 100 would have a speed limit of 100 kmh = 62.5 mph. I would be limited only by the numbers on my speedometer, of course.

Nonetheless ... the fact is that idiots are already using these things, and given that there really is nothing much we can do to stop them, my private campaigns notwithstanding, it makes sense to do something to protect the rest of us from their idiocy. And even to protect them from their own idiocy. Remember, I'm not the one blaming stupid people for their own misfortunes.

"Unauthorized, untrained, ignorant people who should not be handling the weapon in the first place. Control unauthorized access to guns and accidents become vanishingly rare."

But that is simply pie in the sky. One unauthorized, untrained, ignorant link in the chain, and we know that there are lots of them just waiting to happen, and boom, dead kid or whatever.

"Guns are also small enough that they can be secured so that unauthorized people cannot gain access to them without taking extraordinary measures like breaking into a house or breaching a gun safe."

But one tiny slip, same thing -- one night out of a thousand I drop my purse in the driveway, and boom, my month's spending money is stolen. (It happened twice to me, that one-in-a-thousand coincidence of events: twice I went home just for a few minutes and went upstairs without locking my door, and twice the same <insert derogatory epithet> walked in and took my purse.) One night out of a thousand somebody gets drunk and forgets to lock the safe where the gun is kept, and boom, the kid is dead.

Human error, or stupidity, or genuine accident, can never be completely prevented or guarded against. But I don't see any principle that justifies not making efforts to do so -- and also making reasonable efforts to ensure that the efforts made are effective, and that of course means enforcement action.

It is not too difficult to take enforcement action in respect of children and seatbelts: violations are open and notorious. It is much harder to take in respect of, say, children and firearms. The difficulty in taking enforcement action because of the non-public nature of violations, and the potentially serious consequences of non-compliance, might suggest that if we want to enhance compliance, it should be made more difficult not to comply.

Canadian cars never had those automatic seatbelt things, because non-compliance wasn't as much of an issue here. USAmerican cars did. Case in point. Again, there are lots of factors to be weighed and balanced, but there just isn't any a priori conclusive argument either way.

.

[slackmaster]

70. A corollary to your remark about idiots

If you try to make something idiot-proof, someone will invent a better idiot.

As usual the extent to which we believe society should mandate a change in behavior comes down to our own personal opinions of what is or is not reasonable. You and I seem to be in full agreement that manatory seat belts are reasonable: They should be installed on all vehicles and their use required at all times. I would not buy a vehicle that didn't have them even if one was available. If I bought an antique car that lacked seat belts I'd surely have them as well as safety glass installed before I would venture to drive it on the street.

Oddly, seat belts are not required on school buses or any other from of public ground transportation here in California, and every year it seems there is at least one bus crash resulting in serious injuries or fatalities. The week after Thanksgiving I visited some relatives in Arizona and was appalled to learn that motorcyclists over age 18 are still not required to wear crash helmets there. These deficiencies obviously result in needless expense to all of us through higher insurance and health care costs. I suppose the same argument could be made about devices to prevent idiots from shooting themselves or others accidentally, although even if all gun accidents were eliminated the benefit surely would pale in comparison to the potential benefit of mandatory breathalyzer ignition interlocks on all cars.

[BullDozer]

28. It never stops

The advocacy for "safetly features" is being driven by lawsuits led by the antigun zelots. Just look at the riduculous articles spouting off about the Glocks being unsafe because the safety features are deactivated when the trigger is pulled. Wow a gun that fires when the trigger is pulled, thats a novelty isn't it?

THAT is the main reason for the advocacy of safety features, and why they're necessary. Adults can take care of themselves, but children can't

And just exactly what does a "loaded chamber indicator" look like that will efectively communicate the fact that there is a round in the chamber to a child or someone otherwise unfamilar with the firearm in question look like?

Perhaps a motion detector activated big red flashing light accompanied by a loud speaker blairing "Warning the gun is loaded. Danger Will Robinson Danger. Stop. Don't Touch. Leave the Area. Tell an Adult"? Ooops we can't use that last part can we as some people claim it's gun industry propoganda.

Beretta has had to go to court multiple times in the same case to defend themselves, even though one of their guns which has a loaded chamber indicator already, to fight the claim that "the gun design was flawed because it didn't provide for an adequate "loaded chamber indicator." Some semi-automatic handguns have a button which protrudes from the back of the gun when a round has been chambered.

The Beretta actually has such a device -- but the suit says it's too small."
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/7442368.htm

[DoNotRefill]

20. ROTFLMAO!!!

"the press know quite a bit about firearms"

TOO F*CKING FUNNY!!!!

Especially when you see semi automatics described as machineguns, revolvers described as "semi-auto revolvers", references to "black rhino" bullets designed to go through bulletproof vests, et cetera.

The vast majority of the press are clueless when it comes to firearms.

[Superfly]

25. Don't forget the .223 that can "go forever"

NT

[slackmaster]

23. Thanks for the chuckle

Yes, reporters and editors are right up there with members of Congress and state legislators as experts on firearm design.

:eyes:

[alwynsw]

45. I'll allow that the press knows quite a bit about bias against

firearms and how to use it to the advantage of the anti RKBA drones.

I can't find the link, but the mindless repetition of a CA cop's declaration about the awesomepower of the .223, as noted in a recent thread on this board, is but one example.

One has only to watch the news on TV or read virtually any "news" paper or website to see the bias in action.

I had an experience with a high school classmate during a runion weekend - three decades after graduation - that solidifies my point. He is a reporter for a California newspaper and is staunchly anti-gun. He stated that he was proud of the many anti-gun articles he had written and had contributed to. His knowledge extended to the fact that "guns kill". He could not describe an AW. He did not know the difference between a pistol and a revolver, machine gun and sub-machine gun, pump or semi-auto rifles and shotguns; the list goes on.

I convinced him to visit my home the next day. He actually fired several firearms (under close supervision from me and after I gave him a fairly thorough safety demo - hands on by him) and found it to be enjoyable. The odd part: he stated that firearms use seemed to be OK when practiced by people like "us" but he would still crusade to get firearms out of the hands of the "wrong" people.

He didn't care to hear that we have laws that are designed to do just that already on the books.

'nuff said

[MrSandman]

54. If you are saying

3% of what are unintentional?

"In many cases, the omission of safety features by firearm manufacturers made bad decisions by gun handlers catastrophic."

What product can that not be said for...autos do not have Breathalyzer lockouts.


Even in states requiring hi-tech safety devices, law enforcement is exempted. Is this because law enforcement needs less safe guns or to pass the law, legislatures had to exempt law enforcement because these guns are less dependable.

[Moderator]

9. I can't find a dupe, show it and we will lock n/t

[MrBenchley]

11. I had combined one part of the four-part series

with another unconnected news report showing how scummy the gun industry is and given them the portmanteau title "The corrupt gun industry in action."

But there is no thread as far as I know discussing the whole four parter....and it's important to see this now, as the industry desperately tries to engineer itself an unprecedented and unimaginably dangerous congressional immunity from liability law with the help of the GOP.

[BullDozer]

18. You hate when I do this, don't you?

Gee Benchly the house passed it's version of the bill 285-140 with the power balance being:
Republicans: 229
Democrats: 205
Independents: 1

That means a bunch of Democrats voted for H. R. 1036.

Now if we look at the Senate we will see that the bill S. 659: "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was introduced by Sens. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) and Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and is cosponsored by Democrats Daschle, BREAUX, DORGAN, JOHNSON, LANDRIEU, LINCOLN, MILLER, Nelson (Nebraska), and Reed.

So it's just a GOP thing eh? Tell us a another fairy tale.

[MrBenchley]

30. It makes me laugh my ass off.....

Keep on peddling that crap..

"Gee Benchly the house passed it's version of the bill 285-140 with the power balance being:
Republicans: 229
Democrats: 205
Independents: 1
That means a bunch of Democrats voted for H. R. 1036."
Yeah, dozer? How many Democrats voted for it? And who were they?

[slackmaster]

32. Two very silly questions

How many Democrats voted for it? 205

And who were they? People who were elected by the people of their states to represent them in Congress.

[CO Liberal]

59. And Who Sold Out Those They Were Supposed To Represent.....

...by caving in to the gun lobby.

Or those who didn't want to appear "anti-gun" because the Nuts Ruining America would use it against them in the next election campaign.

[BullDozer]

33. peddle away

Keep on peddling that crap..

What in my post was non factual?

The point that there is CLEAR Democratic support for the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act legislation?

The fact that when this support is pointed out you are no longer able to pull your "call it a GOP scam" in an attempt to demonize it?

Yeah, dozer? How many Democrats voted for it?
63 for
137 against
5 no votes

wow 46% (rounded up from 45.9854014)of voting Democrats voted for HR1036. Tell us again how this is GOP-NRA plan?

And who were they?

Here you go Benchley there names are in this list of those voting for HR 1036.

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bell
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Carter
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Combest
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dingell
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Etheridge
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Obey
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

[MrBenchley]

34. Only in some fantasy world

does 63 out of 205 equal 46%.But that's the world RKBA enthusiasts live in.

[BullDozer]

35. My mistake

Must have coffee from now on before posting and doing arithmetic.

However you are very wrong in your claim as I didn't claim that it was 46% of the 205.

The correct number would be 31.5% of voting Democrats voted for HR1036. 63 of 200 Voting.


Nothing to say about the Democratic support for the Senate bill though eh?

Where we will see that the bill S. 659: "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was introduced by Sens. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) and Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and is cosponsored by Democrats Daschle, BREAUX, DORGAN, JOHNSON, LANDRIEU, LINCOLN, MILLER, Nelson (Nebraska), and Reed.

[MrBenchley]

40. Too too funny

Keep trying to pretend that a measure 70% of the Democrats opposed is a Democratic bill.....

[BullDozer]

41. Learn to quote

I didn't say that, you're the one spouting off that it's a GOP thing.

If so why didn't we see 205 Democrats voting against 1036 and why do we a Democrat introducing and other Democrats co-sponsoring S.659.

Eh?

[MrBenchley]

42. Hahahahahahaha!

Are you trying to tell us that the GOP is NOT pushing this disgraceful piece of shit? All but seven Republicans in the House voted for it.

In case you're wondering, that's 96% of the GOP.

[BullDozer]

44. Yeah sure

pushing this disgraceful piece of shit?

That's why 63 Democrats voted for it?

That's why Democrats Co-sponsored HR 1036?

Thats why Democrats are co-sponsoring the Senate version?

Face it there is Democratic support for this law, deal with it.

[MrBenchley]

49. Hahahahahahaha....

Keep on trying to pretend it's a Democratic bill, dozer. It's amusing to see how desperately and dishonestly the RKBA crowd will spin.

[iverglas]

50. didn't a bunch of Democrats

... vote for that Partial Rights Abortion thingy too?

Looks to me like there are bunches of Democrats who do things I would severely disapprove of. I guess I wouldn't necessarily call those things "Democrat" things though.

.

[MrBenchley]

55. Yup...

For that matter, Zell Miller is nominally a Democrat....although why, I have no idea.

[Superfly]

57. And Mayor Daley...

who you staunchly supported a couple days ago. Crooked as they come.

[BullDozer]

51. Find where I said that

Keep on trying to pretend it's a Democratic bill, dozer

Never said it was.






That's why 63 Democrats voted for HR 1036.

That's why Democrats Co-sponsored HR 1036.

Thats why Democrats are co-sponsoring the Senate version.

Face it there is Democratic support for this law, deal with it.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[the_acid_one]

13. A repost.

Where to begin?

Let's see...Let's start with the Bryco, since it's featured with such prominance in the article. Bryco is a manufacturer of cheap guns, quality and price wise. A bryco semi automatic pistol can typically be bought for around $100-$200. The lack of "safety" features helps keeps price down and that is why they are not there.

It has nothing to do with a "corrupt gun industry" as some people like to put it. You can buy a BMW with anti-lock brakes, highly engineered "crunch" points, side airbags and radar collision detection, and it will be safeer then the yugo with standard breaks, gas tank in the position most likely to explode, poor handling, and no airbags. The differance? About $55,000. Is this because Yugo is a corrupt car manufacturer?

No, it's because it's bout as cheap to buy a new yugo as it is to fix your old one if it breaks.

And now for fun with statistics!

At least 9,485 people were killed -- and another 127,000 wounded -- in unintentional shootings from 1993 to 2001.

Unintentional shootings include "accidently pulling the trigger" and shooting youself in the ass, or "accidently" shooting your partner in the head. Some of them may have been caused by "defective" firearms. More likely is that they couldnt have been prevented by anything less then welding the trigger in place because the shooter is an idiot.

The pistol, a Bryco Model 38 semiautomatic, lacked critical safety features, making the weapon more dangerous to handle. There was no easy way to tell the gun was loaded and it fired even after the magazine -- the clip with ammunition -- had been removed.

First rule of firearms safety. Every gun is always loaded. What do you do when making a gun "safe"? CHECK THE CHAMBER! Every time! Even when a fellow "firearms enthusiast", who knows what he's doing, and might as well be called an "expert" checks the chamber and hands me a gun, right after I take it, I keep my finger off the trigger, I check the chamber for myself, and then I might dry fire it pointed in a safe direction


Quote: Some poorly designed guns have gone off accidentally in the hands of children and inexperienced firearm owners, who made foreseeable mistakes.


Forseeable mistakes= pulling the trigger while pointed in an unsafe direction. No safety prevents that.

Ruger ignored nearly a century of safety technology when it manufactured the gun to original specifications, with no device to prevent the exposed hammer from striking the cartridge if the gun fell or hit a hard surface.

Just like the orginal. Hardly a defect. That'd be like complaining if you were injured because your exact replica of the Model T didnt include anti lock breaks, airbags, and superior handling through modern design. Remember, the gun in question is from the late 1800's. of course it doesnt have modern safety features!

Safety features, like those missing from the Bryco pistol that shot Brandon Maxfield, are especially effective in preventing accidents among people with limited knowledge of firearms.

They're referring to "magazine safeties". The problem in that case is not a defective firearm, it's a defective user. That being said, the lawsuit protection bill Mr Benchley keeps bringing up would not cover defective firearms.

Bryco, which I agree makes unsafe guns (cheap products are often less safe...no news here) would still be liable if someone dropped a gun and it went off and injured them. Lawsuit pre-emption would prevent people from suing companies like Beretta, maker of safe firearms, because of a criminal action by a third party. In short, The bill has nothing to do with defective firearms, only defective people.

[iverglas]

16. Q

Ruger ignored nearly a century of safety technology when it manufactured the gun to original specifications, with no device to prevent the exposed hammer from striking the cartridge if the gun fell or hit a hard surface.

Just like the orginal. Hardly a defect. That'd be like complaining if you were injured because your exact replica of the Model T didnt include anti lock breaks, airbags, and superior handling through modern design. Remember, the gun in question is from the late 1800's. of course it doesnt have modern safety features!


Does Ford sell Model Ts today to be used in the same manner as any other automobile sold new in 2004?

Would it be permitted to do so?

Would the family of a passenger thrown through the windshield of a new Model T and killed be told: "Remember, the car in question was designed a century ago. What did you expect??"


It strikes me that "that" would be like "this" ... if there actually were a "this".

.

[MrSandman]

19. HE should be familiar with the manual of arms

Does Ford sell Model Ts today to be used in the same manner as any other automobile sold new in 2004?


I do not think the replicas are made to be used as a modern firearm is to be used. I am sure the Manual of Arms would cover the dangers inherent in carrying a loaded chamber under the hammer. I also know that carrying any firearm without a well made holster is dangerous as hell.


If one uses smokeless powder in a repro Hawken, is it the repro's fault if the barrel explodes?

Yeah, a magazine safety was patented by JM Browning in 1911. How many of JMB's M1911's have this feature? They have been in production for 90 years. There is a reason some people do not want magazine safeties. I sold a S&W 5906 because it had one.

[iverglas]

71. meant to say

I was all set to ask "don't you mean "a riposte?" A "snappy comeback" to whatever offensive nonsense was in that deleted post you were replying to?

Then I figgered out that the deleted post in question had been thine own ... and you were indeed reposting ...

.

[MrBenchley]

72. Hahahahahahaha....

"It has nothing to do with a "corrupt gun industry" as some people like to put it. You can buy a BMW with anti-lock brakes, highly engineered "crunch" points, side airbags and radar collision detection, and it will be safeer then the yugo with standard breaks, gas tank in the position most likely to explode, poor handling, and no airbags. The differance? About $55,000. Is this because Yugo is a corrupt car manufacturer?"
That's why we see the Yugo company frantically trying to engineer itself immunity from liability laws...oh wait! That's not the Yugo folks, that's the gun industry that's doing that. The thoroughly corrupt gun industry.

[slackmaster]

73. MrBenchley is blowing smoke

That's why we see the Yugo company frantically trying to engineer itself immunity from liability laws...oh wait! That's not the Yugo folks, that's the gun industry that's doing that. The thoroughly corrupt gun industry.

Nobody is trying to exempt the gun industry from liability for DEFECTIVE products or ILLEGAL business practices, only from liability for abuse of its products by criminals over which the industry has no control.

[Baclava]

14. ...oops!

HUNDREDS of millions automobiles share design flaws that contribute to KILLING close to 50,000 citizens EVERY year. Where is the handwringing?

Oh, right...we NEED those, nevermind........

[iverglas]

15. "where is the handwringing"?

"HUNDREDS of millions automobiles share design flaws that contribute to KILLING close to 50,000 citizens EVERY year."

How about ... where is the proof?

Or even a little circumstantial evidence ...

(Does citizenship have something to do with entitlement to protection from dangerous products?)


Hundreds of millions of faeries stop over in my garden every January on their annual migration to the south pole, you know.

.

[Baclava]

17. OK

http://www.car-accident-lawyers-attorneys.com/car_accident_statistics.html

"Deaths and Injuries On the Road: 2001

-42,900 people died in car accidents in 2001.
-There is a death caused by a motor vehicle crash every 12 minutes; there is a disabling injury every 14 seconds.
-Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for people ages 1 to 33.
-The age groups most affected by motor vehicle crashes are 15-24 and 75+.
-There were an estimated 5,800 pedestrian deaths and 90,000 injuries."

[MrBenchley]

31. Not a word on there about ANY design flaw

at all.....

[iverglas]

37. amazingly

But pbviously, when I responded to a post that said:

"HUNDREDS of millions automobiles share design flaws that
contribute to KILLING close to 50,000 citizens EVERY year."

... by quoting that statement and by asking, immediately following the quoted statement:

"How about ... where is the proof?"

... I was asking for proof of how many car crashes (and resultant deaths and injuries) there are every year.

Yeah. I'd be dim enough to ask for that.

The assertion made was *not* that "x" number of people are killed; it was that some part of that "x" number of people are killed (or the deaths of the all of the "x" number of people are caused in some part) BY THE DESIGN FLAWS SHARED BY HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS <OF> AUTOMOBILES.

Damned if I can figure out why anyone would think I was questioning the obvious facts stated in a subordinate clause, rather than the unsubstantiated allegation in the main assertion. 'Course, I can imagine why someone might like, or would purport, to think that.

.

[Baclava]

38. *

The design flaw is the human behind the wheel...duh...

[iverglas]

43. if you actually expect me to believe

... that when you said

"HUNDREDS of millions automobiles share design flaws that
contribute to KILLING close to 50,000 citizens EVERY year.
Where is the handwringing?
Oh, right...we NEED those, nevermind........"

... the "design flaw" you were referring to was "the human being behind the wheel" ... well, I guess you must not have a very high opinion of my capacity to comprehend what I read.

.

[Baclava]

48. General semantics 101...

Aye - there's the rub...subliminal messages never seem to work any more...

[MrBenchley]

39. Didn't you know?

subordinate clauses and the like are only for those lily-livered hand-wringers who are afraid of guns....rootin' tootin' gun totin' real men don't care about pansy issues like what sentences mean. That's how it is that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" comes to mean "Yah-Yah-Yah-I need a popgun!"

[slackmaster]

22. Interesting overgenalization of the term "design flaw"

I agree that Ruger made a poor decision to manufacture their single-action revolver so true to an antiquated design that it could fire so easily when dropped, but regarding some of the other POSSIBLE "safety" features mentioned in the article as a consumer of guns I have to say a couple of things here:

- For my purposes a chamber-loaded indicator is utterly pointless. I learned safe gun handling from an expert. The first thing he taught me was that guns are always loaded. If I had a gun with a chamber-loaded indicator I would NEVER under any circumstances bank on that device giving an accurate indication; I would continue my lifelong habit of removing the magazine and cycling the action at least twice while visually inspecting the chamber before even beginning to treat the weapon as being in anything other than Condition 1. Even after that check I would still exercise proper muzzle control ("never point a gun at anything you are not willing to destroy") and insist that others in my presence do the same. What's the point in a device that inherently cannot be trusted?

BTW - I have one gun with a chamber-loaded indicator: A German Walther P.38 military pistol made in 1944. I made a quick search for my copy of the manual for that gun that was issued to German troops during World War II but haven't been able to scare it up. But I recall that the manual shows the indicator was not included as a safety feature, i.e. to ensure that the gun is NOT loaded, but rather to provide assurance that the gun IS loaded and ready to fire. That is, if you check with your thumb that the safety lever is in the forward "F" position, the hammer is cocked, and the chamber-loaded indicator is protruding. The checks can be done quietly, in the dark, and without cycling the action. Calling it or using it as a "safety feature" is really a perversion of its intended purpose.

- I WANT to be able to fire my semiautomatic pistols with the magazine removed. I own one that has a magazine disconnect safety: A pre-World War I .25 caliber pocket pistol designed by John Moses Browning, the famous Belgian "Baby" 25. While it's an interesting collector's piece and I have carried it on occasion because of its small size it's not something I would regularly rely on for self-defense. The round is notoriously anemic and the magazine disconnect mechanism needlessly complicates the care and cleaning of the weapon while removing the flexibility of firing the gun without a magazine.

Anyone who needs to have a gun incapable of firing when the magazine has been removed and the chamber NOT inspected has not been properly trained in gun safety. What if such a person relies on a magazine disconnect mechanism and that mechanism fails, as ALL mechanical devices can? There is no substitute for proper handling. I want my guns to be made to a reasonable standard of safety but not overly sophisticated with every possible device to defeat human stupidity. No matter how many safety devices you put on a gun I will continue to not trust any of them.

[79Ramchargerfan]

24. gee. my dads ol hand me[/i] down from his dad .........

must be real unsafe.

cmon the safety is between the ears. punish the finger not the gun

[MrSandman]

29. My PPK/s is that way

I have never considered it a safety device...except to insure my safety as you said...insuring it is cocked and locked

[RoeBear]

36. Well, we could always...

...teach safe gun handling in school.
Part of a liberal arts program.

[Columbia]

47. That might actually save lives

But promote gun ownership, something gun-banners are deathly afraid of.

[RoeBear]

52. You are correct sir...

...they are soil their pants afraid of the idea.

Come to think of it isn't there a group called Americans for Gun Saftey? Maybe they'd sponsor it. :eyes:

[MrSandman]

53. I believe AGS is a moniker for

a gun control group
"To reduce gun crime and promote gun rights, Americans for Gun Safety's top priorities are:
CLOSING AMERICA'S GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE"

http://ww2.americansforgunsafety.com/our_top_priorities.html

On the other hand, if children were gun proofed, who would buy the fearful arguments about eeevil (AW's, .50 cal.'s, hi-cap mags,)things that go BANG.

[iverglas]

58. ahh

"...they are soil their pants afraid of the idea."

If only we knew who "they" were.

Or cared.

.

[RoeBear]

61. SInce you found it necessary...

...to respond I'll ask. Are you 'soil your pants' afraid to teach kids how to safely operate a gun?

[iverglas]

62. good question

Here's one for you:

Do you get a rush when you think about every homicidal psychopath in the world having the firepower to kill every child s/he sees on the street?

Tit for tat, chum.

Anytime you want to ask me a question which you have not the slightest reason to ask me, for which you could not possibly fail to know the answer already, for which you have not a shred of evidence that would suggest that the answer is anything other than one of the two possibilities presented, which by its very nature implies that there are grounds to believe that I do or think or want something that no normal, decent, reasonably intelligent person would do or think or want ... well I'll ask you one just like it.

Deal?

.

[MrBenchley]

64. You know....

"Do you get a rush when you think about every homicidal psychopath in the world having the firepower to kill every child s/he sees on the street?"
Hard not to draw that conclusion from the frequent appearance of those "My new toy" gun porn threads, isn't it?

[iverglas]

65. conclusion? moi??

I was just askin', eh?

But damn, that innocent question of mine seems to have made it look like I actually think that the conclusion you ask about might be a reasonable one, and must therefore have some reasonable basis for thinking that.

Dear me, such was certainly never my intent, and I am mortified that anyone should think it was!

As I can only imagine that RoeBear would be mortified if someone read his question and concluded that he had some reasonable basis for thinking the thing about me that his question implied he had ...

.

[MrBenchley]

66. Well, I'm sure roe will be able to point

to the threads that support HIS feckless contention...

[RoeBear]

69. Thanks, for the...

...non answer.

[MrSandman]

56. Firearm Recalls/Warnings Index

http://www.firearmsid.com/Recalls/Firearm%20Recall%20Index.htm#top