As surprising as it might be, other than tobacco, firearms are the only consumer product not regulated for health and safety by a federal agency.
Teddy bears, radios, and hairbrushes, which combined kill less than 100 Americans each year, are all regulated for safety. Guns, on the other hand, kill 30,000 and injure another 70,000 Americans annually but are not regulated. Why?
In 1972, pro-gun special interest groups used their powerful lobbying influence to achieve an exemption from government regulation for firearms. This precedent continues despite the fact that guns are among the most deadly consumer products made.
What does this sound like to you? Does it mean that the gun lobby is unconcerned with safety if it would interfere with profits to the manufacturers? Or is the lobby's main concern that the 50 or 80 million gun owners not be inconvenienced?
What's your opinion? Should the gun industry be exempt from standard practices that are binding on others? Why would that be?
Wouldn't this type of regulation be in the best interest of the gun-owning public? If, by means of setting safety standards, a decrease in accidental deaths from firearms could be realized, wouldn't that work against the need for gun banns?
Please leave a comment.
On the contrary, if a firearm does not do what it is intended to do (propel a bullet out of the barrel) when used properly, then you have every right to sue the manufacturer for a defective product. So, let's break down the 30,000 killed and 70,000 injured.
ReplyDeleteAbout 16,000 deaths are suicides and 4,200 injuries are attempted suicides- someone purposely tried to put a bullet in their head. No amount of regulation/laws will prevent this (it is already illegal to commit suicide).
About 13,000 deaths are murders and 50,000 injuries are assault related (criminal) - someone purposely tried to put a bullet into someone else's head. Again, this is already illegal, no amount of regulation is going to prevent it.
Which leaves about 750 deaths and 16,000 injuries that are classified as accidental. From reading newspaper stories, I have found that 95% or more of these would not have happened had the four safety rules been followed.
So what about the times that someone is using safety rules and the gun "blows up"? I haven't seen that statistic anywhere, but again from stories I have read the fault lies with the ammunition, either a) using the wrong ammunition for the firearm, or b) reloaded ammunition that got a double charge. Since firearms are already stamped with the ammunition type and the owner's manual already has these warnings and the ammunition manufacturer marks on the box what type it is, the only fault left is the user.
I don't see why we need to have "consumer product safety" regulations for half of the stuff we do have already. The number of warnings on ladders is absolutely ridiculous. The proliferation of safety warnings is an indication that people are stupid and feel like they are owed something for their stupidity. Companies put them on to save them the hassle of lawsuits later.
Here's a clue, knifes are dangerous too if they are not used properly. So are rocks (yet somehow, we haven't regulated rocks). So are jellyfish and ...
Gun Guys. *sigh*
ReplyDelete"but are not regulated"
That right there is a lie.
Show me a teddy bear you need a background check done by a federal agency to purchase.
Third - Or matches, gasoline, knives, toxic household chemicals that are all dangerous and yet not highly regulated.
ReplyDeleteHell, you can mix common household cleaners and make a bomb. Mix chlorine and ammonia and you've got a highly toxic gas. Should we have background checks and waiting periods for such chemicals? for knives, matches, lighters or gasoline? 1 matchbook a month laws?
The thing is, a gun that isn't "dangerous" is useless--it's the danger guns pose to an assailant that makes them lifesavers.
ReplyDeleteTexas Ranger Charlie Miller said it best:
Texas Ranger Charlie Miller was minding his own business when a concerned citizen came up to him, noted the hammer cocked back on the big 1911 dangling from the Ranger's belt, and asked, "Isn't that dangerous?" Charlie replied, "I wouldn't carry the son-of-a-bitch if it wasn't dangerous."
What do they think the "F" in BATFE stands for? Frogs? Firetrucks? Firearms does certainly indeed have a Federal agency tasked to its regulation.
ReplyDeleteFirearms are THE most regulated product in the country. Period. No argument possible. There are tens of thousands of regulations associated with them.
There is no other consumer product that requires the seller to call the FBI and ask for permission for you to purchase it.
The Gun Guys are outright liars in case you haven't figured that out yet.
"Firearms are THE most regulated product in the country. Period. No argument possible. There are tens of thousands of regulations associated with them."
ReplyDeleteYup, you can actually request a book of firearms law from the ATF. It's so expansive they now put it on CD's and mail it rather than sending books.
Hell, the gun laws for the state of California alone fill several hundred pages.
Sorry fellas, but we're talking about two different types of "regulations." I think you all know that.
ReplyDelete"Teddy bears, radios, and hairbrushes, which combined kill less than 100 Americans each year, are all regulated for safety."
For SAFETY.
Sorry fellas, but we're talking about two different types of "regulations." I think you all know that.
ReplyDelete. . .
For SAFETY.
Oh my god, now we've got safety regulations and non-safety regulations. Is there no end to the double-talk and obfuscation?
See what I mean about how silly it was on your part to talk about "double-talk and obfuscation"?
Seriously, though, guns are designed to launch projectiles at high velocities. There's simply no way to make it "safe" to be in the path of those projectiles, and if there were, guns would be a good deal less useful than they are.
If you want something safe, don't buy a gun.
ReplyDeleteI guess common sense isn't that common anymore.
So are cars. How many deaths result from their use each year?
ReplyDelete45superman said, "See what I mean about how silly it was on your part to talk about "double-talk and obfuscation"?"
ReplyDeleteNo, really it's not silly at all, and my talking about the different definitions of "regulations" is not a good example of "double-talk and obfuscation."
In this context we're talking about manufacturing guns differently so they cannot discharge when dropped, for example. Another improvement I heard about is the automatic block from firing the round in the chamber when the magazine is removed. That's how many accidents happen, isn't it. There are others too, I don't know them all.
My point is, to confuse the discussion of these product safety standards with the licensing and registration and background checks and all the other gun laws, is an example of "double-talk and obfuscation."
"Another improvement I heard about is the automatic block from firing the round in the chamber when the magazine is removed. That's how many accidents happen, isn't it."
ReplyDeleteMike - Magazine Disconnects are one of the worst "safety improvements" ever devised. I do not have one (nor will I ever) on any gun I carry or use for home defense.
No, really it's not silly at all, and my talking about the different definitions of "regulations" is not a good example of "double-talk and obfuscation."
ReplyDeleteIf you say so. The thing is, I thought the ostensible justification for every gun restriction was "public safety"--now you're admitting that the tens of thousands of gun laws on the books at the federal, state, and local levels aren't for "safety"--that every gun law already passed has been justified by lies? I fully agree, but I certainly didn't expect you to acknowledge that fact.
Mike W., Why are "Magazine Disconnects one of the worst "safety improvements" ever devised?"
ReplyDeleteMikeB,
ReplyDeleteI'm at home and a burglar breaks into my house; I go to defend myself with a firearm equipped with a magazine disconnect.
If I haven't inserted the magazine correctly or it drops out as I'm moving, the entire firearm is incapable of firing. Including the round in the chamber.
Second, many firearms require the trigger to be pulled to dissemble it. A bad design made worse if there is a magazine disconnect. A person has to insert a magazine into the well (possibly loaded with ammunition) before the TRIGGER can be pulled. Guess what makes a gun go bang? (did you guess pulling the trigger?)
Bob, How often do those problems you described arise? With your training and intelligence, practically never, I would imagine.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, of the 30 or 40 (I forget what the number is) accidental deaths per day, how many do you think might be the result of this exact scenario, a round in the chamber, magazine removed, person thinks the gun is empty?
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteThose problems arise daily in training and practice.
I have a firearm with a magazine disconnect. I had to train around the problems. I am not relying on that to be my primary protection because of that safety.
On the other hand, of the 30 or 40 (I forget what the number is) accidental deaths per day,
Try to pay attention and not wildly exaggerate things. This is what makes us suspect you aren't being honest.
out of the approximate 30,000 deaths per year, 17,000 of them are suicides. Another 12,000 are homicides.
According to the CDC WISQARS site, a source I reference often here, in the last 7 years, the highest number of accidental deaths per year has been 824.
That means the daily accidental deaths average 2.25...not 30 or 40.
Quoting the wildly over inflated numbers like that makes it sound like you are not telling the truth.
On the other hand, of the 30 or 40 (I forget what the number is) accidental deaths per day . . .
ReplyDeleteAre you claiming that there are "30 0r 40 accidental" shooting "deaths per day" in the U.S.? If so, you need to dramatically improve your lying skills. The lower end of your figures (30 per day) would equate to almost 11,000 deaths per year. The actual figure is well under 1,000.
That's as amusing as your "10% of gun owners are criminal thugs" number, also pulled out of your ass.
You're right 45. I was thinking of the suicides. The number of accidents is much less, but the point is the same. More accidents happen because there's a surprise bullet in the chamber than those freaky incidents Bob described. Do you agree with me or him?
ReplyDeleteMore accidents happen because there's a surprise bullet in the chamber than those freaky incidents Bob described. Do you agree with me or him?
ReplyDeleteI have no idea which number is higher--and no interest. My right to a gun that fires every time the trigger is pulled with a live round chambered is not trumped by other people's negligence.
By the way, I "yelled" at you for wildly fudging numbers, but now I notice my numbers aren't right, either. I said that accidental shooting deaths in the U.S. are "well under 1,000 per year." Actually, according to WISQARS, that was true in 2006 (the last year for which data is available), but it was higher before that. Interestingly, the numbers have been trending downwards dramatically and consistently from one year to the next. This, despite a growing population and about 4 million more guns every year--supposedly "without safety regulations."
ReplyDeleteMike - The issue is that you are introducing "safety devices" into the firearm that necessitate practices which INCREASE the risk of negligent discharge while also increasing the possibility that the gun will not go bang when you need it to.
ReplyDeleteThat's why I called it "one of the worst "safety improvements" ever devised."
One thing I'd point out in regards to the magazine disconnect safety is that S&W, which includes them in their M&P product, chose to leave them out of the models they market to law enforcement. The reason they do that isn't because they don't care about the safety of police officers and their families, it's because it's not a safety feature. The only reason manufacturers put them in at all is because certain regulators require them.
ReplyDeleteI've had failures of the magazine disconnect feature in every firearm I own that has one. Some of the failures are extremely dangerous failure modes for someone who doesn't understand how the mechanism works. You can't make safe guns, you can only make safe users.
Thanks Sebastian. What about the idea that some guns can discharge when dropped? Is that something that could be fixed and standardized?
ReplyDeleteWhat about the idea that some guns can discharge when dropped? Is that something that could be fixed and standardized?
ReplyDeleteSure, that can be prevented--by not dropping them.
Seriously, though, how many gunshot wounds are inflicted in an average year by dropped guns? If the number is a single digit, I wouldn't be surprised.
The industry has already largely solved that problem without a mandate from the government, because, wouldn't you know, gun owners don't want to buy guns that go off when you drop them.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with mandating it, is that you still have some very specialized target pistols with light triggers that will go off if you drop them. There's no way to design a quality target gun with a light trigger that isn't subject to this. Guns are dangerous. There's not much you can do to get around that.
Having said that, in my years of competition, I've never seen anyone drop a target pistol. They are typically not something you handle, except on the firing line. Guns meant for self-defense almost universally have internal safeties that will prevent them from firing if dropped.
"Guns meant for self-defense almost universally have internal safeties that will prevent them from firing if dropped."
ReplyDeleteYup, all of my Sigs have passive internal safeties. That said, those safeties do have a negative impact on trigger pull.
Do you want to negatively impact the trigger pull in a gun you use for shooting competitions? Absolutely not. For a carry gun? Perhaps, but leave that up to the free market and individual consumers. No gov. regulation is needed.
Also, another issue to keep in mind is this. You develop government "safety standards" and the next thing that'll happen is they'll declare any guns without such features "unsafe." They'll restrict purchase of said "unsafe" guns and perhaps even prohibit possession.
Perhaps even require you to turn them in retroactively or become an instant criminal. (like CA did with a few guns in the 1980's. - The SKS I believe)