The Heroic Gunslinger Fantasy

[Granite]

I have never seen a gun commercial lay alone a bid friendly gun commercial.

Commercials, no (though they're not totally unheard of). In print it's a different story.

Although that does raise a funny question...why don't gun manufacturers run major TV campaigns? Because they don't need to. This stuff literally sells itself. Big tobacco and booze never ever had it this good.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Commercials, no (though they're not totally unheard of). In print it's a different story.

Although that does raise a funny question...why don't gun manufacturers run major TV campaigns? Because they don't need to. This stuff literally sells itself. Big tobacco and booze never ever had it this good.

True. I want a Desert Eagle because I saw Arnold worth one. I want the gun Clint Eastwood carried in Pale Rider.

 

[kmoney]

I don't think a"sane" person just goes or and starts shooting. These people had something going on in their lives that made them think k killing a bunch of people wad a good idea. To the right person, that would show up.

Who is the 'right' person? How do you know it would be found? What kind of questions would show it? I don't mean to say that no test would find something. I just feel like some of this is Monday-morning quarterbacking. I'd like to see a medical person say, "yes, based on such-and-such information, so-and-so would have been diagnosed with X prior to them carrying out these atrocities". Although, perhaps that information isn't there because no testing was done.

 

[rocketman]

Has anyone seriously considered holding firearms manufacturers liable for such events? Because once litigation's involved they'd change their tune dramatically.

You have as much chance of litigating against an auto company for making the car that someone got drunk and killed a family of four with. The car just as the gun are just tools, completely harmless tools depending on who is using it, guns nor cars have ever killed anyone, the person using them have.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Who is the 'right' person? How do you know it would be found? What kind of questions would show it? I don't mean to say that no test would find something. I just feel like some of this is Monday-morning quarterbacking. I'd like to see a medical person say, "yes, based on such-and-such information, so-and-so would have been diagnosed with X prior to them carrying out these atrocities". Although, perhaps that information isn't there because no testing was done.

The right person is some trained in dealing with mental disorders, a psychiatrist or sociologist.

 

[kmoney]

The right person is some trained in dealing with mental disorders, a psychiatrist or sociologist.

Right, I'm just not convinced that anything would have been found in these people even before the events.

 

[rocketman]

Gun makers would have no liability unless they deliberately made a gun that could be modified from semi auto to full auto. Aside from that, they have no more liability than an automaker has when somebody crashes a car into a crowd of people.

Sorry for being redundant with my last post CM, I will say that the gun manufacturer is not responsible if a person breaks the law and modifies the weapon for full auto either. The original design & intent was semi-auto, and unless the manufacturer makes the parts to modify it then they are not liable after the sale.

 

[rocketman]

The right person is some trained in dealing with mental disorders, a psychiatrist or sociologist.

Employed by who? the government? When you speak of taking or denying someones rights there has to be more involved then the word of one person I would think...seems a bit subjective.

 

[kmoney]

Employed by who? the government? When you speak of taking or denying someones rights there has to be more involved then the word of one person I would think...seems a bit subjective.

I'd think the psychological exam would/should be done by a third party.

 

[rocketman]

Right, I'm just not convinced that anything would have been found in these people even before the events.

Looking at these guys would have probably been enough...all had the crazy eyes. Just Sayin...

 

[Stripe]

Sorry, but if you have a question you didn't feel was answered you'll just have to tell me what it was. I put the question you asked that led directly to the quote and highlighted the answer/rebuttal.

So if you want a conversation, fine. But coy and couched isn't that and I'm disinterested in game play on the point.

For the rest who might happen by, before Stripe started this sort of odd side bar I made an offer for a genuine dialog about reasonable efforts to reduce gun violence and help gun owners be as safe and prepared as they can be. I made it as a gun owner who respects his weapon and the right, but who also understands we aren't doing every reasonable thing we can do to make those weapons as safe in the hands of their owners as they can be.

Toward that end, while rejecting a few notions set on the table, I was looking at weapon safety training and certification, which strikes me as an empirically sound notion. I noted the positive impact of regulations mandating theoretical and practical testing for car and boat owners and the straight forward proposition that a gun owner versed and certified in the safe use and maintenance of his weapon would make for a more responsible and safer gun owner.

I had that sort of training, first by my grandfather as a hunter and later by the ROTC. I can say without question that the training I received helped me to learn a proper respect and approach to my role as a gun owner. I am much more likely to be of help if needed, better prepared to use my weapon to protect myself, property and others and less likely to harm someone needlessly, mistakenly, because of that training.

So it seems like a reasonable place to begin the conversation. :e4e:

Who are you talking to? :idunno:

Tests and licensing is fine and dandy; I do not reject having them.

However, they will never improve our situation or keep us safe. What is required is a foundational change, not more of adding regulations.

And you still haven't answered my question.

 

[patrick jane]

Looking at these guys would have probably been enough...all had the crazy eyes. Just Sayin...

They all have to be on something. They all look high on something, maybe they were patsies like Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan, and John Wilkes Booth.

 

[kmoney]

Looking at these guys would have probably been enough...all had the crazy eyes. Just Sayin...

That's true. :think:

 

[Stripe]

Hard to answer but for the sake of conversation I'll go with the farm kid.

So would I, for obvious reasons.

Now, who would you trust more. A city kid who didn't pass a test or a kid who did pass a test?

The kid who did, obviously.

I don't think the contention is that passing a test is any kind of guarantee but if people are going to be on the road it is nice to know that they passed a written and practical test first.

"Nice to know" doesn't guarantee anything. Tests don't keep people safe. Responsible and properly trained use of equipment does.

Those things are not brought about by passing tests.

 

[patrick jane]

Sorry for being redundant with my last post CM, I will say that the gun manufacturer is not responsible if a person breaks the law and modifies the weapon for full auto either. The original design & intent was semi-auto, and unless the manufacturer makes the parts to modify it then they are not liable after the sale.

There are manufacturers that know how their guns are being modified and could stop it, but don't. They claim, and rightly so, that they can't re-tool a factory production every time some guy in a garage finds a way to modify it. However some designs are very friendly for modifiers.

 

[Town Heretic]

A general response to the thread...

Treating guns more like cars does make sense to me. However, what are the numbers here. It seems like registration/licensing would primarily combat accidents, injuries/deaths that result in the improper use of a gun. What are the numbers on that?

From 2005-10 around 3,800 people died from unintentional shootings. In 2010 alone more than 70k people were treated for non lethal gun wounds. I'm looking for a breakdown of accident/victim of but haven't found it yet.

A small number doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't try something, but I don't think it would anything about the stories of gun violence we've seen in the news recently.

I suppose I'd say trimming the number of unintended fatalities is important enough, but I'd suggest that it would have a larger impact. Many of these people we're reading about, the murderers, trained with weapons in the limited sense of use proficiency at gun ranges. Tie that into a certification program that would have certifying individuals capable of posting red flags and I think you have a few more teeth in the process. I'm weary of seeing after action reports on individuals who raised those flags to friends, neighbors and family members who subsequently, for the most part, did nothing about it.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Right, I'm just not convinced that anything would have been found in these people even before the events.

Some yes, some no. I think that in many cases they might say this person should not have access to guns. I know there have been cases were a doctor warned the police that a patient was dangerous only to have police ignore the warning and the patient went on to kill somebody.

 

[rocketman]

There are manufacturers that know how their guns are being modified and could stop it, but don't. They claim, and rightly so, that they can't re-tool a factory production every time some guy in a garage finds a way to modify it. However some designs are very friendly for modifiers.

That is true, if a person knows what needs to be done to modify a weapon it doesn't matter what the manufacturer does. It goes to intent...does the manufacturer make the weapon for the intent of it being modified? Are they making the parts to modify it? and so on.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Employed by who? the government? When you speak of taking or denying someones rights there has to be more involved then the word of one person I would think...seems a bit subjective.

Or government is by the people and for the people so yes, by the government.

 

[Granite]

You have as much chance of litigating against an auto company for making the car that someone got drunk and killed a family of four with. The car just as the gun are just tools, completely harmless tools depending on who is using it, guns nor cars have ever killed anyone, the person using them have.

The question being, why do we hold Big Auto to a higher standard than Big Gun?

The car and the gun are both deeply American. Does anyone else in the world love cars and guns like America? Hell no. Not even close.

We're a big, sprawling country and the independence and virility intrinsic to the car and the gun speaks to our character, history, and priorities.

Yet when it comes to quality control, government oversight, lawsuits, and recalls, it's night and day. The gun is uniquely, and bizarrely, in its own world.

Calling guns and cars both "tools" is a bit of a misnomer. Can both be used recreationally? Certainly. Do they both make life easier? Well...yes and no. Largely, guns are incidental to the life of Joe Schmoe, when we really break it down. How many people these days shoot for the table, so to speak, and rely only on firearms as a means of providing for themselves or their families? Very, very few.

It's a stretch for me to think of any gun as intrinsically "harmless." Their mission--their sole purpose in life--is to inflict harm, one way or another. Not so with the car. That's why these comparisons never really work.