There's a new bill on the table to protect US gun makers from liability if thier guns are used in a crime. ...See

Of particular note, I saw: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8748468/

Quote by http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8748468/page/2/"This bill has one motivation -- payback by the Bush administration and the Republican leadership of the Congress to the powerful special interests of the National Rifle Association," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) said yesterday. "The unholy alliance and control of the legislative process against the safety of our citizens is immoral, and it's a disgrace."

Sooo.... ...I wonder if Sen. Kennedy realizes that the NRA is pretty much made up of... ...And funded by American citizens? I wonder if every citizen's lobby that oppresses his viewpoints are an "Unholy alliance"... ...I wonder if his lobbies seek to sway the "legislative process" by sharing information, etc too? ...Oh right... ...If he has a lobby, that's what lobbies do.

I wonder, what do you folks feel about this bill that would protect the gun manufacturers?

And if you're up for it.... ....What do you think of the NRA?

(Personally, I think I should sign up for membership since I'm not a member yet, LOL.)

Edit: It looks like a person could be a lifetime member for $750. ...I wish they still had lifetime fishing licenses...

The only liability of gun makers for a gun crime is some kind of a background check before selling the gun just to make sure they're not selling to people already with proven criminal intent. Otherwise, I don't think the gun maker should be liable for the crimes of the gun wielder.

Seriously, if there's a sudden jump in crime involving kitchen knives, would you hold the knife manufacturer responsible too?

I think this case has something similar to the Grokster case for P2P. In that case, the supreme court ruled that Grokster is liable for the copyright infringement of the users because it actively promoted copyright infringement using its software.

If we use that argument, then unless the gun maker advertises to go and kill people, they shouldn't be help liable for the crime.

I agree, more money should be spent educating people how to use a gun instead of just ban them

Quote by hiddensnakehandsI agree, more money should be spent educating people how to use a gun instead of just ban them

True, and if everyone had a sidearm, it would be more difficult for a violent minority to gain anything by incorporating a firearm into a crime. ...But.... That would be so politically incorrect these days...

Quote by archer79True, and if everyone had a sidearm, it would be more difficult for a violent minority to gain anything by incorporating a firearm into a crime. ...But.... That would be so politically incorrect these days...

however, i do not quite agree with that notion, it might be true that the crime would become harder if everyone is equipped with a gun. However there will be more incidents(i would not necessarily call them crimes) from people carelessly use them. And because guns are such powerful weapons, you can kill someone rather unintentionally, as opposed to lets say knife.

Quote by hiddensnakehands

Quote by archer79True, and if everyone had a sidearm, it would be more difficult for a violent minority to gain anything by incorporating a firearm into a crime. ...But.... That would be so politically incorrect these days...

however, i do not quite agree with that notion, it might be true that the crime would become harder if everyone is equipped with a gun. However there will be more incidents(i would not necessarily call them crimes) from people carelessly use them. And because guns are such powerful weapons, you can kill someone rather unintentionally, as opposed to lets say knife.

Agreed. ...And since folks seem to take everything so carelessly, I bet you're right about an increase in incidents/accidents.

Ecchi-san, if you have nothing better to say, then don't say it.

Back on topic.

i simply don't trust people enough to give everybody a firearm. And only because there are too many people who don't think before they act.

But that still doesn't make the gun maker liable for the foolishness of some nut on the street. It's the people who actually uses the gun for criminal purposes who should be prosecuted, not the company who made the gun.

I have a .40 HK USP, Benelli 12ga and a SKS. After you've had training and have learned responsibility and respect for weapons, they're no more harmful than power tools. Of course, power tool manufacturers have likely been sued by people who put nails through their own hands..

Manufactuers can and do promote firearm safety programs. Retailers need improvement in enforcing certain checks. Restrictions aren't really my style, but it's up to Nader and Kennedy I guess... the same men who want to remove the automatic roll-up feature on your car's window.

Quote by EternalParadoxThe only liability of gun makers for a gun crime is some kind of a
background check before selling the gun just to make sure they're not
selling to people already with proven criminal intent. Otherwise, I
don't think the gun maker should be liable for the crimes of the
gun wielder....then unless the gun maker advertises to go and
kill people, they shouldn't be help liable for the crime.

i agree with EternalParadox-san... however, the gray area there is how thorough the background check on the prospective buyer is. i must admit i'm not very well-educated on guns and anything pertaining to them...

Quote by hiddensnakehandsI agree, more money should be spent educating people how to use a gun instead of just ban them

i agree with that too. because if you outright ban them then there will most likely be an increase in violent crime. (i had a government professor go off on this topic for an hour... ) if you ban guns outright, that only pushes the franchise underground so that only the people with bad intent will be armed.

First of all, Gun makers are supposed to sell guns only to licensed firearm dealers. It is up to them to run the background checks on all handgun sales. No one can buy a gun directly from the manufacturers except these licensed dealers, if the did it is an illegally acquiered gun. Senators like Kenndy and Clinton prey upon people's ignorances to these facts.

If gun makers were sued for they use of thier guns in a crime, by that logic you could also sue car makers as their car was used as a get away ride or for the drive by shooting. Common sense should know a company shoould not be held responcible for people useing their products in an unresponcible way.

If you still think it's safe, you just aren't trying hard enough.

Further, it's incredibly easy to acquire firearms illegally, especially if you're a criminal who already has connections to black market sources. No matter how convuluted the new legistlation, it's more about winning the next election or appointment rather than logic. If anyone really cared about reducing crime committed with a firearm, we'd have a war on illegally acquired firearms similar to the war on drugs (then again, notice how popular the war on drugs is?)

Quote by fireflywishes

Quote by EternalParadoxThe only liability of gun makers for a gun crime is some kind of a
background check before selling the gun just to make sure they're not
selling to people already with proven criminal intent. Otherwise, I
don't think the gun maker should be liable for the crimes of the
gun wielder....then unless the gun maker advertises to go and
kill people, they shouldn't be help liable for the crime.

i agree with EternalParadox-san... however, the gray area there is how thorough the background check on the prospective buyer is. i must admit i'm not very well-educated on guns and anything pertaining to them...

Quote by hiddensnakehandsI agree, more money should be spent educating people how to use a gun instead of just ban them

i agree with that too. because if you outright ban them then there will most likely be an increase in violent crime. (i had a government professor go off on this topic for an hour... ) if you ban guns outright, that only pushes the franchise underground so that only the people with bad intent will be armed.

I bought a gun a few months ago. ...They were very complete/comprehensive. ...And they were in contact with feds prior to selling me the gun. ...As far as commercial sales go, I think they're doing a pretty good job. The harder issue revolves around private party sales. ...As firearm possesion is generally considered a private matter.

Fortunately, there's a long list of people who in the US aren't allowed to have/buy firearms, including felons. This regulation, among others helps get the guns out of hte hands of people who may turn to crime again. (On the flip-side though, if they go straight, it will haunt them. )

Quote by Teddy KennedyThe unholy alliance and control of the legislative process
against the safety of our citizens is immoral, and it's a disgrace.

He is right, but not in the way he thinks he is. Every time a legislator like Ted Kennedy takes away (or restricts their ability to acquire) guns from law-abiding citizens, he is conspiring against the safety of our citizens. Which unholy alliance, you may ask? The anti-gun lobby and lawmakers who are in their pocket.

Anti-gun laws only take guns from people who obey the law. Criminals will get guns regardless. Speaking personally, reasonably, and logically, I am for a highly armed and self-defending general population.

Guns are for losers who don't have the balls to actually fight. No matter how you look at it or how you reason. Only the military and police should carry guns. Nowadays, a scrawny 90lbs, 13 yr old can kill at will.

Quote by dutchforceNowadays, a scrawny 90lbs, 13 yr old can kill at will.

Why is that bad?

That's pity. Video games should have this law first. After all, after I don't remember which one killing by teenagers, a videogame like Doom was blamed, because everyone know that the guns that were used to kill have nothing to do with that.

I live in a country where gun are strictly regulated. There are only army, police who are allowed to have guns. Well the hunters are also allowed to have some but it's harder to be unnoticed with rifles. And the circulation is controlled too.

Anyway, the americans find perfect to have a higher percentage to be killed by guns, why would I disagree with them ?

oooohhhhh! I have waited for this!! n.r.a. pride! Sen. Ted Kenedy is a murderer. I think that we shouldn't have a law protecting gun manufacturers from the use of their fire arms. People should be smart enough to know that it is their choice to use a gun, and that their actions are not influenced by the weapons manufacturer. It is a sad realization that however that we do need this law because a lot of people in the world don't take responsibility for their actions or choose to put the blame on someone else because they can't believe that they were so stupid to do what they did. I find that the National Rifle Association is a great thing. It teaches gun-safety, and raises awareness about the proper use of guns. Altogether we shouldn't have laws telling you to buckle your seatbelts, making manufacturers not responsible for their products use, and many other things because it is just common sense. Its your own fault for spilling hot tea on your lap you tweaking crack head that wants to sew lipton.

In the same way, I don't understand the usa... after all, this country wants to prevent Iran to product some nuclear material to have electricity cheaper and more abundant just because like the guns there may be people who may misuse them...

Quote by dutchforceGuns are for losers who don't have the balls to actually fight. No
matter how you look at it or how you reason. Only the military and
police should carry guns. Nowadays, a scrawny 90lbs, 13 yr old can kill
at will.

Consider this, Say you're at home and some guy 6 foot 6 inches tall comes wandering in to your house. Yeah you try to attack him but find out he's a better fighter than you. Guns are an equalizer. A gun gives a 5 foot 4 inch tall woman the ability to stand up against some one the size of Arnold Shwartzeneggar. You clearly don't understand that.

And for the people that think just having a gun is dangerous here are some factual statistics.
Guns verses Doctors
Doctors:

- The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
- Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000. (and they cause millions more with known-to-be-fatal prescription drugs and unnecessary surgeries.)
- Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.

(Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health Human Services.)

Guns:

- The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.
- The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
- The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 000188.

(Statistics courtesy of F.B.I.)

Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do."

FACT: Not everyone has a gun, but almost everyone has at least one doctor.

Scary huh?

Quote by alminaIn the same way, I don't understand the usa... after all, this country wants to prevent Iran to product some nuclear material to have electricity cheaper and more abundant just because like the guns there may be people who may misuse them...

You are simply talking about two different things. One is a weapon of mass destruction. The other is not. Further, machine guns and automatic weapons are already highly regulated in the USA, even though it would be extremely difficult for one man or a small group armed with machine guns to approach the number of deaths associated with the release of a nuclear device.

Quote by alminaIn the same way, I don't understand the usa... after all, this country
wants to prevent Iran to product some nuclear material to have
electricity cheaper and more abundant just because like the guns there
may be people who may misuse them...

There is a big difference...statistically speaking (though I am no fan of statistics, after all, they are one of the three famous lies from the Benjamin Disraeli quote) guns save more lives than they take in any given year, and prevent more crimes than any kind of lock. Locks only keep honest people honest, guns have the capability to take care of the rest.

Think about it...if you call the police and do not have a gun, are they going to have time to show up before the guy either kills you or harms you? And women, keep in mind that a gun is one of the most effective ways to prevent being forcibly raped.

Quote by BorisGrishenko
There is a big difference...statistically speaking (though I am no fan
of statistics, after all, they are one of the three famous lies from
the Benjamin Disraeli quote) guns save more lives than they take in any
given year, and prevent more crimes than any kind of lock. Locks only
keep honest people honest, guns have the capability to take care of the
rest. Think about it...if you call the police and do not have a gun,
are they going to have time to show up before the guy either kills you
or harms you? And women, keep in mind that a gun is one of the most
effective ways to prevent being forcibly raped.

that is true
However, with the decreased crime rate, there comes an increased incident rate. Lets say two 5 year old kids playing in the park right, and they got bullied by a 10 year old, so the 5 year old pulled out a gun from under himself and shoots the 10 year old dead on the spot, after all, this could happen
However imagine the world that you know very well that everyone around you is carrying a gun, do you feel safe? You better not argue with anyone, you better not bump into anyone, if you did, then you are at the mercy. Even you act perfect in all situations, theres gonna be some drunk punk circling the streets
I am not saying that you should outlaw the guns, but at least when you walk on the street, you would not feel scared. You would not look over your shoulder to see if anyone has a pistol lining up for you, however if everyone can just have a gun very easily, that might very well be the case.
So the crime rate will go down, but what about the incident rate

Actually I feel far safer when everyone is armed.

Quote by Robert HeinleinAn armed society is a polite society.

Folks will always fall victim to their own stupidity. ...I think that preventing corruption and crime is a step in the right direction... ...'Cause folks will always fall to their own stupidity.