Gun manufacturers a part of the problem,,,, REALLY??!?Did anonymous out his thinking cap on before writing that cogent thought? If he did, then he needs to return it as defective.
Thats a really large leap into logic that makes no REAL sense. How can they be a part of the problem. They make a product, knowing full well that they will fall into the wrong hands at times...
Put the blame where it belongs. On the CRIMINAL!
Thanks for helping to make our point anonymous!
And being stupid enough to have failed to read, or failed to understand if he did read, the original post (but given anonymous's spelling and grammar, that's probably the case):
it is easy for gun manufacturers to identify those dealers who may be acting unethically by profiting from the illegal gun trade. However, when gun manufacturer Smith and Wesson sought to establish a code of conduct for the dealers it did business with, the CEO Ed Schultz and the company were vilified by the NRA and fellow gun manufacturers, leading Schultz to resign and the company to abandon its attempt to enforce a code of conduct. Former gun industry lawyer Robert Ricker likewise has noted that the firearms industry is well aware of the diversion of gun to the illegal market and yet has vigorously closed ranks in its attempt to distance itself from any accountability, knowledge or involvement in that market.If we are getting down on criminals, anonymous, then the Merchants of Death
In Feb 2003, Ricker made a sworn affidavit which read in part: “The firearms industry … has long known that the diversion of firearms from legal channels of commerce to the illegal black market … occurs principally at the distributor/dealer level … However … leaders in the industry have consistently resisted taking constructive voluntary action to prevent firearms from ending up in the illegal gun market and have sought to silence others in the industry who have advocated reform”.
need to be criminally liable for their actions.
S&W's code of conduct was not quite as noble as all of that--they hoped to again get government contracts out of the deal to try and recapture some of their market share lost to the semi-auto craze that took over the police market in the late 80's and early 90's. The trouble is, they really didn't have any products that the government wanted to buy.
ReplyDeleteIronically, without Shultz, S&W began anew and developed an excellent line of pistols that law enforcement and even some military are buying. Their comeback has been phenomenal also due in no small part to the surge in popularity of their revolvers for concealed carry.
Most gun manufacturers in the U.S. do not sell directly to dealers but rather sell to large wholesale distributors that in turn sell to local dealers. Manufacturers are all federally controlled and licensed and sell to licensed distributors. Sorry, there just isn't any great conspiracy of death.
Money drives all of it, FWM.
ReplyDeleteAnd there is plenty of illegal money in the mix. More needs to be done,and the manufacturers are fighting doing it - for money.
'Conpsiracy of death'? Anyone who is cooperatively making an effort to maximize their profits through manufacturing that results in death darn well is in a sense doing exactly that. I would have called it a deadly cooperation of corporate greed.
If I were on the board of S&W, I'd be sure to include the estimates of guns that end up in criminal hands in all my production schemes. In fact, being a greedy businessman interested only in the bottom line, I'd probably invest lobbying money towards keeping things the way they are now so that as many guns as possible can flow out of my manufacturing plants, regardless of where they end up.
ReplyDeleteOf course money drives everything. Why would any company want to be in business not to be successful?
ReplyDeleteBTW, gun manufacturers make a lot more money on guns that have never been used in a crime than the few that have.
FWM, can you show me ANY proof or justification of a factual nature to support you assertion that there are more legal guns than firearms used in criminal activity?
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure you cannot.
Further, if your assertion is correct - and it doesn't appear to me to be - there is very small reason for any kind of carry, or home defense.
Because you can't have it both ways, that there is terrible impending risk of gun violence from criminals that requires your personal firearm protection...........but not very many criminals with guns.
You contradict yourself FWM.
It is simple math, Doggone. There are millions of guns owned and only thousands used in crime. I don't need some study or survey to point out that there are far more guns fired in sport in this country than in crime or even against crime.
ReplyDeleteActually you are correct in that it is small odds, in most places in the country anyway, that anyone would ever need a gun to defend themselves.
Even though it is a small chance that you would be killed from gun violence, it is an even smaller chance that you would die in a fire. Even knowing that, I have fire extinguishers and a smoke detector in every room of my house that I wired together so that if one sounds, they all sound. I have fire retardant wall board, fire retardant carpet and fire retardant insulation as well.
If I am paranoid, then so is every school, public building and house built to code in this nation. Fire deaths are relatively few yet we spend billions in prevention.
My needing a gun to protect myself is rare too but I will continue to carry and, hopefully, will never need it any more than I need my fire extinguishers.
I question a couple of your assumptions FWM, the first being the lower number of guns used in crimes, particularly in the context of guns from the U.S. which appear to leave this country for illicit purposes elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteI think you DO need to support your contention; it is not nearly so evident as you assert.
Further, as to your analogy to incidents of fire and fire extinquishers, I would make two points. The first is that your analogy would only correctly apply to fires caused by arson, if you are addressing criminality; I doubt you keep a fire extinguisher specifically for that eventuality, but rather find that it is important for other causes of fire. The instances of arson are minute in the context of fires overall.
But more to the point, a fire extinguisher is useful to put out fires, and has no other dangerous use - unlike a firearm which is more likely to be used against you, or by a member of your family - as in suicides or accidental injuries or fatalities, and which is unlikely to be stolen and used to commit a crime.
In short, your comparison is a failure.
So, if your claim about the percentage of guns used in crime is correct, you should be able to find something that backs that up other than what you would like to be the case.
I'll wait (smiling) while you get on that....
Unless you actually believe that the millions of rounds of ammunition expended every year in this country are used to kill millions of people every year in this country, you can sit there smiling away, wrong as usual.
ReplyDeleteThanks for trying though.
I'm genuinely glad to bring a smile to your face FWM, and I am sincerely pleased that these exchanges take place in the context of mutual good humor.
ReplyDeleteNow you've switched the topic to ammunition. In fact, I would assert rather that some firearms discharge a lot of ammo, and others little or none, so let us not even go there. I can't imagine that anyone has reliable statistics on which to ase ammo consumption, given the apparent disparities in use.
Rather, we are talking about firearms used in crime,firearms which may or may not actually BE fired (some, clearly, are used to threaten effectively without any discharge) compared and contrasted with firearms legally owned and exclusively legally used.
FYI, for purposes of this discussion only, I would classify use in suicides and attempted suicides as illegal.
Noting"as of 1963, six states still considered attempted suicide a crime--North and South Dakota, Washington, New Jersey, Nevada, and Oklahoma." per a quick google search.
That may have changed; there is still illegality attached in some places to assisting suicide - which could include making a firearm available to someone who intends to use it for that purpose.
(quote from straightdope blog)
I would assert rather that some firearms discharge a lot of ammo
ReplyDeleteSuch as assault weapons, machineguns,and anything else that can fit a high capacity magazine. They shoot loads of rounds quickly.
The ammunition makers love them.
More than that Laci.
ReplyDeleteSome people use their firearms often, either because they are required to demonstrate proficiency for professional reasons, or they engage in shooting sports. Others never touch them, they are gathering dust in a locked storage container somewhere in the house, because the owner wanted to have them, but wasn't keen on using them very often.
Off the top of my head, I can think of quite a few people I know who were, for example, hunters at one time, but no longer participate in the sport, haven't for years, but still have their firearms for it.........because someday they might want to take it up again, or might want to pass their firearm on to a family member 'eventually', etc.
I'm still hoping Laci, mon cher, to persuade you to write a post about YOUR recent home invasion, LOL, successfully resolved by Laci the blogger and Laci the dog, without recourse to a firearm, even though you COULD have used weapons to do so.....
ReplyDeletespringes for woodcocks
ReplyDelete"I'm genuinely glad to bring a smile to your face FWM, and I am sincerely pleased that these exchanges take place in the context of mutual good humor."
ReplyDeleteAnyone that gets upset over discussions on the internet has some serious problems to work out and needs some professional help. Life is too short.
FWM wrote:
ReplyDelete"Anyone that gets upset over discussions on the internet has some serious problems to work out and needs some professional help. Life is too short."
I think that frequently as I delete the expletive ridden comments from the more extreme right.
(Hint, apart from the expletives,foreign grocery store tabloids are NOT sources, lol. They're on a par with space aliens and Elvis sighting rot for the gullible here in the U.S.)
More to what I meant FWM is a sort of congenial feeling towards yourself and some of our other regular commenters, regardless of agreement or disagreement, because you don't seem to manifest the intensity of animosity they do, and because at least some times we can find common ground and mutual respect.
FWM says, gun manufacturers make a lot more money on guns that have never been used in a crime than the few that have.
ReplyDeleteWe may have a different idea of what "few" means. I realize if you divide the guns used in crime by all the planets in tha galaxy, you come up with a small percentage.
It's still TOO MANY.