P6,
One thing that's obvious if you do a little digging - most anti-gun folks (which includes most editorialists in the MSM) don't have a clue what they're talking about.

The editorial you point to is filled with enough errors to be laughable. The main one though is what the proposed bill will do. If a gun maker or dealer violates the law or the product is defective they'll still be subject to court action. What will be stopped are lawsuits brought against them because someone used their product to kill or injure someone else.

Say a gun dealer sells a Taurus pistol to someone & that person has his pistol stolen. It's used to kill a convenience store clerk. What has been happening is that the relatives of our fictional deceased clerk have been suing the gun dealer as well as Taurus, even though the product functioned as it should & no laws were broken in its sale or manufacture. The only thing comparable would be if someone sued Ford & Coors because a relative was killed in a DUI accident.

As to what it has to do with the Right to Arms - it's industry protection. Can't very well exercise your Right to Arms if the firearms makers are sued out of business can ya? For the larger companies it's not a big deal yet, but a few smaller ones have went out of business due to lawsuits of this nature. I don't think the situation is quite as dire as some gun nuts do, but it's deserving of attention.

But look up the bill itself & read what it does & doesn't do. I don't think you'll find anything to be overly concerned about. & as a general rule don't take anything about a specific gun law written in a newspaper for granted. There's much debate whether it's due to ignorance or manevolence, but the bottom line is unchanged: most stories about gun laws & gun owners are dishonest & misleading.

Would it block injury suits due to poorly made weapons?

Washington, DC took the approach of suing gun manufacturers for illegal guns (DC has one of the most strict gun control laws in the country). It went no where. DC claimed that stolen guns from Maryland and Virginia were a threat to its citizens and wanted tamper-proof gun locks on all guns. Note that DC was attempting to pass legislation onto other states in this scenario.

They finally had to admit that the criminals were actually shipping guns from other locales (like FL and NY) into DC and the inept Police Department was seizing guns and taking them in the front door and selling them out the back window of the police stations (they couldn't account for a large percent of seized guns).

P6,
Nope. if a gun causes an injury due to a faulty design or contruction then that gun maker (not the seller) could be & would be sued. The proposed law only deals with lawsuits concerning harm caused by the actions of people after the firearm has been sold (assuming it works as designed)

If it affected legitimate liability then I'd be raising hell. Because of the tort process the vast majority of firearms (including those "junk guns" that you'll hear about) are extremely forgiving in terms of taking abuse. Now this isn't so much a concern for me personally as I handload, & using ammoy you manufacture yourself voids any warranty a gun maker offers (& rightly so - they should not be liabel for my errors in assembling ammo)but because of being held responsible in court almsot all modern firearms are of a decent enough quality to be safely operated. Usually any problems with design are remedied ASAP & manufacturers bend over backwards to make sure the consumer is happy & safe while using their product.

Now one aspect that will come up as an answer to your question (if you asked an anti gunner) is that manufacturers couldn't be sued for making "junk guns" (at least in theory - I'll explain in a sec). "junk guns" are the more politically correct term for what used to be called "saturday night specials'. More or less you're looking at firearms that are inexpensive. A lot of places ban them or want to ban them based on the idea that they aren't safe. But this is BS. If they're used as designed they're as safe as a more expensive firearm. If they're misused they're as unsafe as a more expensive firearm. But some folks will try to claim that the design is flawed because it lacks a safety or that the safety must be disngaged for unloading. If you're familiar with firearms at all you'll note that firearms have been designed like that for about 150 years (revolvers have no safety for example) & any negligent discharges that occur are operator error (negligence is a more apt term) not a design flaw. But it's entirely possible that such a suit could still get through depending on how th ejudge interprets the language of the bill. A firearm having or not having certain features is not a defect of design & any negligent discharges that occur aren't the gun makers fault (as all gun makers provide very detailed instructions & will furnish them for free even if you bought the firearm second or third hand). So I'd prefer that language was included to nip those lawsuits as well.

but no; if the gun blows up in your hand you have a case against the manufacturer. If someone sells a gun illegally & it's used ot injure you then you have a case against the dealer. if someone shoots you with a stolen (or even a legally bought) gun you don't get to sue anybody but the guy that shot you.

So safety legislation along the lines of air bags should be cool, right?

Actually no. Not as you put it. I'm not a big fan of air bag or seat belt laws. That should be up to the person buying the product - not the state.

But what safety legislation is needed? Sure, I'd go for making a firearms safety course mandatory in the education system but other than that there's really no way to make firearms safer. There's ways to make the owner/operator safer but you should realize we have about 800 deaths due to negligent discharges per year in the u.S. It'd be nice to get it down to zero but objectively it's a statistically insignificant number when compared to the overall population or even just the ones that own firearms.

A problem is that gun control has been & is being proposed under the guise of safety lgislation. Either by imposing restrictions on the operator/owner or by imposing requirements on the manufacturers. Dollar per dollar it'd be better ot focus on education rather than "safety" laws that are not safe & more often than not just a guise for more gun control.

But the firearms industry is very self policing in addition to be heavily regulated. I don't really think any legislation would positively effect any safety concerns & do think that it would hinder that whole Right to Arms thing.

want to make it a safer sport/activity? Teach your kids how to properly use them. Ditto with your neighbors kids. Use toy guns (unless your in NYC or some other nanny state paradise where they're illegal) to show them proper handling & then take them to a range so they'll know that guns aren't toys. Air bag type legislation simply wouldn't do a thing to further that goal. Besides, a car & a gun are different enough that there is no air bag like solution. Least not one that the gun makers aren't already offering.

I'm not a big fan of air bag or seat belt laws.

How about headlights?

P6,
I'm not a fan of laws requiring their use. Never said I didn't think it was a good idea. I think waiting 30 minutes after I eat before I go swimming is a good idea. I don't think there should be a law about it.

Same with headlights - good idea but good ideas shouldn't always be backed by government decree. There are other societal means of encouraging good behavior. Using force isn't at the top of my list & government is nothing if it's not force.

But what air bag/headlight type laws do you think would be effective in terms of firearms safety? What would they effect & how would they operate?

Sorry. I think I've decided you're not rational about this topic.

Seat belt and air bags require regulation because some people cannot decide their usefulness (i.e., children).

A libertarian may decide against using seat belts ('I've never had an accident and it wrinkle my clothes') but if the driver has children in the car and there is an accident, did the kids make a conscience decision to not use seat belts?

Eg,
a kid can't always make a rational decision to brush his teeth. Should there be a law mandating such?

I'm not saying that seat belts or air bags aren't a good idea - I'm saying that it is not the place of the state to make that decision for me or for my children.

P6,
I'm rational about the topic - I just have a very different perspective than you do which makes it seem irrational.

If someone says it'd be a good idea to require search engines to only pull up the results you want instead of the ones related to what your query was then you'd naturally counter that as of yet the technology isn't possible for that & it'd be best to better define your query. But if someone doesn't understand the limits of the technology they'd think you were being obstinate or irrational. I could be wrong but I think the same is at work regarding your assement of my rationality on this topic. My main point is that it's not a tech problem, it's a user problem that needs to be addressed & that government isn't the best route available. But if you think I'm irrational so be it.

I just have a very different perspective than you do which makes it seem irrational.

Indeed.

If the lack of brushing teeth might lead to accidential death to the child, then regulations should be considered. In the book of absurd comparisons, this one should make Chapter 1.

We have regulations on under-age children in the workplace, driving regulations on kids under 16, child-proof medicine bottles to name three situations where accidential death could occur. Common sense is not as common as once believed.

That's what's irrational...the absolute flattening of the importance of all things. No one thing is more significant than any other thing, as though your pet fish and your pet bird should be treated the same because they're both pets.

"In many instances, the bill would shield gun dealers who allow criminals to buy a firearm, by severely weakening the ATF's ability to shut down unscrupulous dealers."

So much for the war on terror. I'm still waiting (I shouldn't write this) for Publicola to tell us why anyone should be allowed to buy two dozen handguns a month.

I saw his list of guns. If you like to hunt or even if you don't like to hunt his list looked okay to me.

I still wonder why he believes that people should be allowed to buy as many handguns every month as they desire.

PTCruiser,
Why shouldn't they be allowed to buy whatever they want? Because you don't see a legitimate purpose does not mean there isn't one.

But the bill would not hamper the BATFU (yes, that anacronym was intentional) from going after dealers who broke the law. There are some serious problems with the laws regarding the legality of sales (for example how to determine when a dealer knows the person is buying for someone else) but it wouldn't touch someone who knowingly made an unlawful sale.

& that list of guns was for hunting. The list for certain competitions would be much different. & it'd include many more handguns.

EG,
If you look at the numbers you'll find that buckets filled with water kill more kids under a certain age than firearms (I beleive under 6 or so) every year, but would it be proper to have government regulate buckets?

See you're fixated on the outcome & therefore it seems like an absurd comparison. I'm fixated on the principle (that government should or should not have the role of "nanny") & for that it is just the same.

P6,
It's not a flattening of outcomes - it's a flattening of principle. Yes; brushing your teeth isn't as dire as say not wearing a seat belt. But that's using the ends to justify the means. I'm not a Jesuit & I don't buy into that philosophy. See it's wrong for the government to interfere in your life for your own good just as it'd be wrong for it to interfere to your detriment. & in many cases both outcomes overlap.

Irrational.

I have to apologize for personalizing my remarks but I think you are irrational on this issue and others as well.

The reason that we should require people to use seat belts and protective helmets, for example, is a simple matter of economics and the limits on state and local government budgets. If you are severely injured in an automobile or motorcycle accident and require long term, if not permanent, medical care in a hospital or long term care facility and your insurance maxes out then the government, i.e., taxpayers will have to pick up the cost for your continued treatment unless you believe that we should just let these people die.

On a personal level, I would have no problem if you and others who shared your views were willing to sign waivers refusing all long term medical attention at state expense should you become injured as a result of not wearing a helmet or strapping on a seat belt. I'm not sure that your family members and friends wouldn't fight to keep you alive but I do recognize your right to die and not on my dime.

PT Cruiser,
a better solution to alleviate both your & my concerns would be to eliminate the quasi-socialized health care system we have in place. I can think of no reason whatsoever why you should be forced to pay for my medical treatments whether or not they were due to my own actions.

As I've said before I think seat belts are generally a good idea. However I have heard some arguments to the contrary that are not unpersuasive. Even if those arguments are wrong I still don't see why the government & not the individual should be the one to decide whether or not to buckle up.

P6,
Not irrational. Principled.

Publicola,

(buckets with water and children ... well, you've outdone your previous absurbity. Can you provide a citation for this one?)

If people were responsible for their actions, I might agree with your stance. But when people make decisions and then want to litigate other individuals, companies and the Government over their own mistakes, it just seems to make sense to moderate some decisions in favor of the Government and corporations.

For example, some number of children are drowned in pools every year. If you have a pool on your property, your insurance company will force you to put enclose it before insuring the property. Why? Because if a toddler wonders onto your property and falls in and drowns, the parents can sue you for not protecting their child from the pool. You cannot sue the parents for being negligent.

Irrational principles.

No, you're not being principled. You are being irrational or, rather, you are being principled in support of irrational policies. We don't have a quasi-socialized health care system. We have a half-assed health care system but it is not partially socialized.

Again, I am willing to grant you the right to not use a seat belt or to ride your Harley, Laverda, Norton, Yamaha, Moto-Guzzi or whatever without a helmet. If, however, you think that you might suffer a traumatic head injury from which you will not recover then all I ask is that you release the rest of us from having to take care of you for the remainder of your life. I think that you would probably sign such a release if it were legal but I don't think that too many of your fellow risk takers would follow suit.

PT Cruiser,
If the health care system wasan't partially socialized then why the worry over paying for my bills? Medicaid & Medicare are the two most prominent socialized health care programs we have. It's through them that the starw man who didn't wear his seat belt would have his medical bills paid for.

However in all fairness I must note that doctors are required to treat anyone w/ a life threatening injury (to the point of stabilization) w/o concern for compensation (which isn't socialization per se - it's more of the medical profession being nice even though it's codified into law).

EG,
I was slightly mistaken. Here's a link for ya:

http://www.mfwsc.com/watersafety.htm

30 children under the age of 2 drown in buckets every year. Under 4 years old we find around 350 pool related drownings per year. Under 14 & we have around 943 that drowned in the year 2000. (assuming of course that the stats are accurate which they appear to be from previous stats I've seen on drownings).

Now here's a link comparing deaths per 100,000 in children 1 to 4

http://www.childstats.gov/ac2003/tbl.asp?iid=126&id=4

You'll see that drownings account for a higher number of deaths than firearms. In 2000 it shws firearms accounted for .3 while drownings accounted for 3.3 (per hundred thousand). (& note that falling was the only thing causing less deaths than firearms).

Now according to this link http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/injury_facts_nsc.htm there were 30 kids under 4 & 80 kids between 5 & 14 that were killed by firearms in 1998.

So we're at the same number of kids who drown in buckets & kids who are shot - if we use 0-2 year olds for the drownings & 0-4 year olds for the shootings.

But if we broaden things a bit we'll see 110 firearms related deaths for kids under 15 & 943 drownings for kids under 14.

My point? I was off a little bit, but firearms simply aren't as dangerous (if we go by the stats) to kids as other more common things.

But I don't see any need for the government to step in & regulate everythign just because it seems dangerous. I'm all too aware of how irresponsible people can be & the damage that can be done by frivilous litigation. But the solution isn't to mandate behavior of everyone to keep a few fools from suing us - it's to modify the courts so the fools have a tougher time suing us.

P6,
Rational principles. Just because you don't like the result of them doesn't mean they're irrational.

But I'm curious - in all the things you accuse me of being irrational about, can you provide a rational solution? A specific (not minutely so) solution to say, lower firearms related deaths caused by negligence? In other words if you think safety regulations along the lines of airbags is cool, then how specifically could that idea be applied to firearms?

But I'm curious - in all the things you accuse me of being irrational about, can you provide a rational solution?

Yes. Acknowledge that you're part of society. Live in our shared reality.

THAT is what you're irrational about. We won't get into your entirely ahistorical beliefs about position on human nature.

LATER: I changed that because I don't believe you actually think society would survive your desired system. I think you know that if society ran the way you'd like, you'd need every weapon you own just to go grocery shopping.

"If the health care system wasan't partially socialized then why the worry over paying for my bills? Medicaid & Medicare are the two most prominent socialized health care programs we have. It's through them that the starw man who didn't wear his seat belt would have his medical bills paid for."

1. Medicaid and Medicare are not socialist health care programs. This misunderstanding of these programs only resides in the minds of the American Medical Association; members of the John Birch Society; acolytes of Ayn Rand and the late Senator Barry Goldwater and policy wonks at the Cato Institute.

2. There is no straw man. Every state in the Union is paying medical care costs for at least one individual who suffered a traumatic irreversible head injury while riding a motorcycle and either did not have enough insurance coverage or, worse, did not have insurance.

P6,
Actually if I were King for a day (& didn't succumb tot he sudeen & immediete urge to abdicate) the system I'd implement would be problematic for the first few years. Any change in socio-political sturctures that come suddenly are. But over the long haul it'd be an improvement. No; a person wouldn't need every weapon they owned just to go grocery shopping. But neither would they take for granted that their protection is their primary responsibility - not the state's. Course it would involve much more than just respecting the Right to Arms & on many of those other things you'd undoubtably cringe. But from everything that I've learned it'd be at least as good if not markedly better than the way things are now, with the added bonus of increased personal freedom tipping the scales.

But how would acxknowledging that I'm part of society & living in our shared reality apply to the topic we're discussing? & specifically how would that apply to decreasing the number of firearms deaths caused by negligence?

PTCruiser,
K, I'll play. If medicaid & medicare aren't quasi-socialized programs then what are they?

& for your second point - I have no doubt that you're correct (& understating the numbers). But wouldn't eliminating the system that causes the concern be more effecient than doing elaborate & intrusive legal tap dances to avoid such liabilities?

You can't. You've already proven yourself irretrievable.

"PTCruiser,
K, I'll play. If medicaid & medicare aren't quasi-socialized programs then what are they?"

They are the Medicaid and Medicare Programs. I think the ball is back in your court.