Guns: are they necesary for home defense or a public menace?

Damn, I had almost forgot to respond to this. Let me add to Montez, take a course in Constitutional Law, focusing on civil rights and civil liberties but also criminal rights. David O'Brien's Constitutional Law text, the second volume on civil and criminal constitutional law is enlightening. Every time I have taught this course I am amazed at how few rights we really have and how often the students are not aware of the limits of their criminal and civil rights.
 
Gwydion said:
Well, you can't really get rid of them. Firearms are a genie that can't be put back in the bottle. To return to the example of Great Britain, despite incredibly tough gun restrictions, gun crime is rising. There's a large pool of guns used in crimes that the police can't get rid of, and they're even seeing a rise in the use of zip guns, or home-made firearms.
Click to expand...

I agree about the rise in gun crime in Britain, it is on its way to becoming a major problem (though i doubt it will ever be as bad as in the states, where some people feel obligated to own a gun as it is in the constitution).

I'm not sure about the home made guns though, i've not heard anything about them (except one guy recently (an American, ironically) who killed a police officer with home made ammo) but I won't dispute it as I haven't seen any figures.
 
I´m guessing that he is a forum member that disagree with you, but cannot defend his oppinion with resenoble argument so he tries to take out his rage this way.
 
Ozrat said:
No...

He's just a jackass trolling with flamebait.

Just ignore the fool people.
Click to expand...

He's probably an anti-gun person, but is trolling to make pro-gun people look dumb. Or something similarly devious.

Or he's just stupid.
 
He's probably an anti-gun person, but is trolling to make pro-gun people look dumb. Or something similarly devious.

Or he's just stupid.
Click to expand...
You obviously haven't seen his other posts....
 
On the issue of law suits against gun manufacturers- this op-ed from the mayors of Chicago, New York and Gary-

Found in the NY Times, 2/24/04-
Lawyers, Guns and Mayors
By MICHAEL R. BLOOMBERG, RICHARD M. DALEY, JAMES K. HAHN and SCOTT L. KING

ew problems facing American cities are more serious than gun violence. Guns destroy thousands of lives every year and spread fear in our neighborhoods. It is much too easy for criminals to get firearms. And when a handgun is readily available, a minor argument or domestic dispute can quickly escalate into a homicide.

We've worked hard to get illegal guns off the streets, through tough law enforcement, by supporting reasonable gun laws — and by suing gun manufacturers and dealers to get them to take responsibility for their actions. Some two dozen American cities and counties have filed similar lawsuits.

But Congress is on the verge of passing legislation that would undercut the ability of local governments to hold the gun industry accountable for its role in flooding our cities with guns. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act would shield irresponsible firearms manufacturers, wholesalers, dealers and trade associations from any form of civil liability in cases in which they recklessly or negligently supply firearms to criminals. The bill, which was approved by the House last April, is now being considered in the Senate.

We do not advocate suing manufacturers in all instances when an incident involving a gun causes harm or injury. But shouldn't we be able to sue manufacturers and suppliers when they act with wanton disregard for the safety of our neighborhoods?

By immunizing gun manufacturers against civil liability, the bill would remove much of their legal incentive to behave responsibly. It would encourage bad manufacturers to remain bad and good manufacturers to become lax.

Most firearms dealers are responsible business people selling to law-abiding customers. But a small minority are not, and their unlawful actions are largely responsible for the gun violence on our cities' streets. According to federal data from 2000, 1.2 percent of dealers account for 57 percent of all guns recovered in criminal investigations. Many of these guns were illegal "straw purchases," a common street-gang tactic in which someone with a valid state firearms card buys large quantities of guns for resale to people with criminal records.

And yet the gun industry refuses to police itself. Gun manufacturers and wholesalers know who the problem dealers are, because when guns are recovered at crime scenes, they receive firearms tracing reports that show them which dealers sell disproportionately to criminals.

The gun industry claims it's merely seeking protection from frivolous lawsuits. But federal and state courts are recognizing the legal validity of many of these cases. Courts in several states have upheld the legal merits of these suits, and a case involving Chicago is before Illinois's highest court.

Almost 7,200 people were murdered with handguns in the United States in 2002, the most recent year for which figures are available. It is obvious that something needs to be done at the federal level. But rather than pass gun legislation that would make our streets safer, Congress proposes basically to immunize the gun industry from efforts to make it act responsibly.

All senators should oppose this bill. If they don't, they ought to explain why the one industry deserving of this extraordinary protection should be the one that makes a product that kills thousands of Americans each year.

Some of our senators and representatives might also consider serving as a big-city mayor for a day or two. They could talk, as we do, to law-abiding, hard-working mothers and fathers who are desperate to get guns off the streets so they can walk to the store without fear or let their children play in their front yards. These citizens deserve a Congress that will work to make their lives safer.

Michael R. Bloomberg is the mayor of New York. Richard M. Daley is the mayor of Chicago. James K. Hahn is the mayor of Los Angeles. Scott L. King is the mayor of Gary, Ind.

and the response from the next day-

February 25, 2004
Blame Gun Makers for Crime? (6 Letters)

To the Editor:

Re "Lawyers, Guns and Mayors," by Michael R. Bloomberg, Richard M. Daley, James K. Hahn and Scott L. King (Op-Ed, Feb. 24):

The four big-city mayors want to be able to sue gun makers. Since cars also kill people, why don't they sue car makers?

Gun ownership carries at least as many responsibilities as car ownership. People who want to own guns should pay for the privilege and prove to an insurer that they are capable.

Shift the burden to where it belongs; the makers may be venal, but they are not liable.

MARSHALL L. SMITH
Rockville, Md., Feb. 24, 2004
•
To the Editor:

Nowhere in the Feb. 24 Op-Ed article by the mayors of New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and Gary, Ind., is there mention of the National Rifle Association. That group's lobbying efforts in Congress and its financial clout have cowed many lawmakers into relinquishing their responsibilities concerning handgun legislation.

The four mayors should be ashamed for not placing the blame where it belongs.

EDWARD EARLY
Stamford, Conn., Feb. 24, 2004
•
To the Editor:

A simple question for the four mayors (Op-Ed, Feb. 24): If they know who the 1.2 percent of "bad" gun dealers are, why don't they have the legal system prosecute the dealers instead of asking the manufacturers to be policemen?

JOHN PERKINS
Brookhaven, Miss., Feb. 24, 2004
•
To the Editor:

Re "Lawyers, Guns and Mayors" (Op-Ed, Feb. 24): Rather than continuing to pursue one of the most highly regulated industries in America, we should consider the enforcement of existing gun laws to incarcerate criminals.

In addition, allowing the carrying of concealed weapons by would-be victims may keep potential attackers off guard, thereby decreasing crime.

We appreciate the efforts of our mayors in their most difficult tasks, but attacking an overwhelmingly honest industry while leaving citizens unarmed and criminals free will not make any of us safer.

JACK D. LYONS
Chicago, Feb. 24, 2004
•
To the Editor:

Re "Lawyers, Guns and Mayors" (Op-Ed, Feb. 24):

As an answer to the problem of gun violence, ordinary law-abiding citizens should be permitted to carry weapons.

Citizens must be able to defend themselves; this is a fine example of why liberals don't do security well.

MARY MCLEMORE
Autaugaville, Ala., Feb. 24, 2004
•
To the Editor:

In an ideal world, the police would catch lawbreakers, bring them to justice and make cities safer places to live. But in "Lawyers, Guns and Mayors" (Op-Ed, Feb. 24), reality is seen.

More often, lawyers and the threat of monetary damage are the heart of law enforcement. It is ironic that passing the law immunizing gun makers against civil liability would be tantamount to taking the guns out of the hands of the police officers who keep our streets safe.

RICHARD GEISMAR
New York, Feb. 24, 2004
 
It's important to note that this legislation doesn't block every civil lawsuit. If the dealers, manufacturers and distributors are found to be negligent, or they produce a product that's unsafe to use in its intended manner, they're still open to lawsuit. The goal of the bill is to avoid lawsuits filed against law-abiding people engaged in law-abiding activities.
 
Most firearms dealers are responsible business people selling to law-abiding customers. But a small minority are not, and their unlawful actions are largely responsible for the gun violence on our cities' streets. According to federal data from 2000, 1.2 percent of dealers account for 57 percent of all guns recovered in criminal investigations. Many of these guns were illegal "straw purchases," a common street-gang tactic in which someone with a valid state firearms card buys large quantities of guns for resale to people with criminal records.
Click to expand...

So Gwydion are you willing to let these guys, the 1.2% of dealers who knowingly sell these weapons to people with criminal records through straw purchases, get away with it?

All manufacturers can be sued under different theories for problem arrising in the goods that they put in the stream of commerce. They can be sued under products liability- strictly for design or manufacturing defects, under warranty or contract causes of action, and under negligence- but those negligence cases usually stem from the gun itself- an alternative to the cause of action.

However, these are usually state cases under state law. Say a person were to go from New York to Virginia (a popular place for these dealers apparently due to Virginia's lax gun laws) and regularly buy weapons from a dealer using straw purchases. There is almost no way to nail this person in federal court in New York because of jurisdictional rules. Because the dealer has not set up a business in New York, because he hasn't entered New York and perhaps doesn't know his products are going to New York, New Yorkers can't sue in New York.

Which means they have to go to Virginia to sue in Virginia court, and apply Virginia law. That same law that is generally more tolerant than in New York, would probably let the dealer get away with it.

Is that fair?
 
welsh said:
Say a person were to go from New York to Virginia (a popular place for these dealers apparently due to Virginia's lax gun laws) and regularly buy weapons from a dealer using straw purchases... That same law that is generally more tolerant than in New York, would probably let the dealer get away with it.

Is that fair?
Click to expand...

A straw purchase is making a firearms purchase for someone who couldn't legally make one, and it's against the law federally. If the dealer knew this was going on, then the dealer would also be committing a crime and could still be sued. If the dealer didn't know the purchases were straw purchases, then there's no reason the dealer should be sued anyway.

It's fair.
 
Gwydion-

Here is the bill-

http://www.theorator.com/bills108/hr1036.html
or
www.heritagefund.org/common/legal/docs/S659.pdf


And here is a commentary.

www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/hr1036dissenting108cong.pdf

Note the exceptions to existing federal and state laws on the transportation of commerce. This law would overrule earlier law.

The only people that would be susceptible to prosecution would be those who sold weapons knowing that they would be used for furture criminal behavior, not even those who could reasonably foresee such behavior.

Gwydion, you're right that the law doesn't bar all law suits against manufacturers and dealers, but it does narrowly define those law suits that are permissible, more so than common law rules would allow and in excess of those that govern most manufactured goods.

For instance, Intratec, a company that made the TEC-9, a weapon marketed as "resistant to fingerprints" would be protected. Yet this was a company that manufactured a weapon that didn't pass muster against the ban against machineguns, got banned under different state bans and the 1994 assault weapon ban.

More on that-
http://www.cpsmlaw.com/publications/assault.shtml
http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Firearms/Auto-Pistols/Intratec_TEC9.htm
http://conspiracyx0.tripod.com/weapons/tec-9.htm
 
Is it fair for a company like Bushmaster, that manufacturers rifles popular for use among hunters and competitive shooters to face a lawsuit because of the criminal actions of two men? Even if Bullseye were negligent, should Bushmaster be liable for trusting the government's licensing program and selling to 'bad egg' dealers? What happened to letting 1000 guilty men go free to avoid punishing one innocent man?
 
Gwydion said:
Is it fair for a company like Bushmaster, that manufacturers rifles popular for use among hunters and competitive shooters to face a lawsuit because of the criminal actions of two men? Even if Bullseye were negligent, should Bushmaster be liable for trusting the government's licensing program and selling to 'bad egg' dealers? What happened to letting 1000 guilty men go free to avoid punishing one innocent man?
Click to expand...

No, again if dealer who sold the snipers the rifle had now reasonably foreseeable knowledge that the rifle would be used in a criminal act, I don't see why he should be sued.

There are legal sanctions against frivilous law suits.
However, if the dealer was known in the community for being "an easy source" of weapons and indeed, weapons could be traced to his sales records, and that is why the weapon used to kill 13 people was bought there, than I think it fair that he be sued under negligence.

It's a simple theory- you are responsible for what you do, and thus responsible for your negligence. If you are being negligent and making a profit- than you deserve to get sued.

Should Bushmaster be sued? I don't think Bushmaster should be given better protection than any other manufacturer. Why? Are guns so special that they need protection?

I am sorry Gywdion, I am not sure why you think companies like Intratec deserve to be protected when they make a weapon seemingly designed for criminal use. I mean it was one of the top ten weapons used in crime by the BATF for many years. Something that Bushmaster can't claim.

Most firearms dealers are responsible business people selling to law-abiding customers. But a small minority are not, and their unlawful actions are largely responsible for the gun violence on our cities' streets. According to federal data from 2000, 1.2 percent of dealers account for 57 percent of all guns recovered in criminal investigations. Many of these guns were illegal "straw purchases," a common street-gang tactic in which someone with a valid state firearms card buys large quantities of guns for resale to people with criminal records.
Click to expand...

1.2% of dealers responsible for 57% of guns recovered in criminal investigations don't deserve protection.

Why do you think they do?

This is not a law to protect law abiding people doing lawful activities. This is a law that protects the gun industry- dealers and manufacturers, from liabilities that other lawful manufacturers and lawful people are not entitled too.

Why?
 
That small fraction of dealers probably don't deserve protection against civil suits.

However, that tiny minority of dealers may poison an entire industry. There have been dozens of suits against dealers and manufacturers, and all but one of these that I know of have been completely thrown out. In that case, the manufacturer was found only partially liable because of the design of the firearm. The problem is that these perfectly legitimate, law-abiding companies are forced to pay millions and millions of dollars defending themselves against cases that are generally without merit. Like the Beretta case where they were sued for not putting a loaded chamber indicator on a gun that actually did have one. These cases have become so common, that many states have already passed similar bills of their own.

Are you upset that the gun industry is getting some kind of special consideration here? Lobby for more immunity bills. I don't care. Lobby for immunity bills for fast-food restaurants, or automobile manufacturers. Hell, lobby for a universal immunity bill that prevents lawsuits against manufacturers outside of product liability and criminal negligence. It doesn't matter to me.

Why am I willing to give Intratec a pass of questionable practices (and if you can't prove anything in criminal court, that's really all it amounts to)? Because of Bushmaster, Colt, Smith & Wesson, Ruger and many other firearms manufacturers that produce legal products but have been forced to defend themselves against meritless lawsuits.
 
According to page 2 of this-
www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/hr1036dissenting108cong.pdf
"34 governmental entities have filed suite against gun manufacturers, distributros and trad associations in attempt to bring to an end marketing and distribution schemens that place guns in criminal hands. Relying on public nuisance and claims of products liability, these municipalities sued the gun industry for displaying an utter indifference to the safety of their communities and cities through their faulty desing and selling of guns. Of those 34 suites, 18 won favorable rulings on the legal merits of their claim, five were battling motions to dismiss, four had their claims dismissed and seven ended without success."

These are the lawsuits being targetted.

"Under this law- only five causes of action would be permissible- (1) transfers were the transferor has been convicted of violating Section 924(h) of 18 USC, (2) actions alleging negligent entrustment or negbligence per se (in otherwords negligence as a matter of state statutory law); (3) actions alleging knowling and willful violation of a federal or state law relating to the sale or marketying of a product wehre that violation was the proximate cause of the harm, (4) breach of contract or warranty claim, and (5) Actions for physical or property damaged directly due to the design or manufacuture of the product when used as intended."

Only in those narrow cases when the dealer knowingly transferred a gun to someone despite knowing it would be used to commit a crime of violence or a drug trafficking crime, or when the dealer negligently entruste the gun to a shooter, or a plaintiff files a negligence per se suite would the plaintiffs be entitled to relief.

The law discourages teh adopting of reasonable safety enhancments such as gun locks. Manufacturers face no liability for failing to implement safety devices that woudl prevent foreseeable injuries.

Note the langugae- the bill prohibits any action "brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified proecut, or a trade assocation for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misues of the product by the person or a third party."

Nobody gets this protection! The general rule of law is clear- persona and companies may be laible for the foreseeable consequences of their wrongful acts, including the foreseeable criminal conduct of others.

Look Gwydion, this is not about extending immunity bills. Hell, I want less immunity bills. It's the ability of people who are injured by the negligence or intentional acts of companies which helps keep those companies making products and selling those products responsibly. Are there abuses? Sure. Are they worth the cost? Yes. It's the ability to be sued that keeps companies from selling crap to consumers that is harmful.

That's part of the role of law, to regulate the market. Since you can't count on companies to protect individuals, the law has to. If these companies could be responsible than you wouldn't need the lawyers. Does that mean I support victims? yes.

WHy should a manufacture be immune from liability for the criminal use of guns if that use is a foreseeable result of the manufacturer's or seller's negligence or other wrongful conduct?

A gun seller supplies criminals with the means to kill by irresponsibliy selling guns to a gun trafficer. Such a sale would be negligence since the foreseeable result is that the trafficer will sell one of the guns to a criminal who will use that gun in a crime, under state laws of negligence and public nusiance for failing to use reasonable care in its sale. (Remember state's rights?) A jurty could find that the subsequent criminal shooting was a foreseeable result of the negligent sale. However under this law, the dealers would be immune from liability if the guns are used in a crime.

Those who make and sell guns, like everyone else in society, is obligated to use reasonable care in selling and designing their product, and may be liable fore the foreseeable injurious consequence of their failure to do so even if those foreseeable consequences include unlawful condcut by third parties. That's the standard that we are all obligated to follow.

The gun industry doesn't deserve to be exempt from that.

Here's the thing- no one forces you into an industry. But if you decide to take on an industry, you are obligated to follow the law.
Getting sued is part of the nature of doing business. That's why companies have legal counsels and hire lawyers. It's part of business (hell, it's even tax deductible!)
 
Gwydion said:
That small fraction of dealers probably don't deserve protection against civil suits.

However, that tiny minority of dealers may poison an entire industry.

Why am I willing to give Intratec a pass of questionable practices (and if you can't prove anything in criminal court, that's really all it amounts to)? Because of Bushmaster, Colt, Smith & Wesson, Ruger and many other firearms manufacturers that produce legal products but have been forced to defend themselves against meritless lawsuits.
Click to expand...

That's part of doing business.

I don't see why protecting Bushmaster from a frivilious law suit is more important than the right of the family of some poor bastard who got shot from a gun sold by a dealer in Virginia to a gun trafficer who the dealer should reasonably have foreseen would have put those guns on the streets to criminals.

Hell if the suit against Bushmaster is bullshit, it will die when it goes to jury if it doesn't get dismissed.

Are you saying that a victim doesn't have the right to sue?

I am sorry, but if the dealer is being negligent, he's an asshole and deserves to be sued.

If Intratec is marketing guns that are "finger print proof" than the industry needs to be cleaned up.

Can you count on the industry to clean itself up? How? That's the point of law- to regulate the market.
 
Hypothetical situation: a licensed dealer sells let's say 8-10 TEC9s to a buyer, a regular buyer, who buys great quantities every time, yet the buyer is not a licensed dealer... Hmm, what do you think he is going to do with those guns? U think about this and tell me exactly why the dealer could not assume that those guns are going to hit the streets, but in the hands of potential criminals.
 
Well, the counter argument will be- gun dealer or gun collector. Someone who really likes Tec 9s has the right to buy as many as he likes.

Right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top