The gun-rights crew might wish to tamp down their ire a little. I am mildy pro-gun-rights, since it has seemed to me that the problem is in enforcing existing laws, not creating new ones, and I do think people have the right to own guns. However, the squawking in this thread about S&W’s agreement to do such things as trigger locks and to not sell guns to people who haven’t passed a firearms course baffles me. S&W’s move seems like a great idea. Heck, if I was buying a gun I’d be inclined towards them, since this gives an impression that they care about public safety. It seems roughly comparable to me to car manufacturers agreeing to put in those special interior handles in trunks so children can get out if they lock themselves in. The car manufacturers might do this in response to lawsuits from parents of suffocated children, just as the gun manufacturers might put in trigger locks in response to lawsuits against them, but that doesn’t mean it’s a bad move. Would you to refuse to buy cars from a manufacturer that agreed to the interior trunk handles if they were put in in response to a lawsuit? Would you see it as “giving in”? It’s tough for me to muster up much sympathy for the gun-rights crew if this is what they get all excited about. HCI may be yammering about what a victory it is, but of course they would, and of course they’d push for more; and the gun-rights organization, in turn, will do their best to tear down such things. Extreme slippery-slope arguments have never had much weight for me; I trust the American people to tell the difference between trigger locks and a wholesale gun ban, and to know that there are a great many people who can own and operate guns responsibly. Neither side looks good when they lose all perspective.
Gaudere
This is not what the squawking is about. It is about folding under the pressure of FRIVILOUS lawsuits designed to intimidate the gun manufactuers to do things they have been unable to legislate.
The point of the lawsuits was never to win, their case is ridiculous. The point was to threaten them with so many lawsuits that the legal bills alone would kill them. And then there is always the possibility that our legal lotttery system would bankrupt the entire industry with even one loss.
What you might not know (even though tracer posted it up there somewhere) is that S&W has been voluntarily shipping trigger locks with their handguns for several years now.
I am surprised that you can not see the intimidation/taxpayer financed payoff here.
Is this truly the way you want our country to legislate from now on?
This is more than it apears. On the surface, a mandatory gun safety course seems just fine. But if you have been involved in the preservation of the 2nd Amendment, you begin to recognize backdoor registration and licensing when you see it.
If the nation wants to license firearms ownership then let it pass a law. If it wants to register all guns, let it pass a law.
Since all those efforts at lawful legislation have failed, many backdoor attempts have been attempted.
“Fingerprinting” of the casing a gun ejects is a backdoor method of registering all pistols.
You make two good points, here but don’t realize it.
One: IF
It’s a small word, but important. The fact of the matter is that you are not. A million “ifs” won’t pay the bills at S&W.
Two: Impression
I would think here at the Straight Dope impressions would be dicarded out of hand without proof. If (there is that word again 
) you ever decide to purchase a handgun, it will probably be for self-defense. You will potentially be relying on that handgun for your life. If these features made them any more effective, they would be included right now.
IF these features were really in demand, they would exist on the market already. (in fact a very few guns have internal locks already)
In addition…
These concessions truly do only make an impression. With the possible exception of the gun safety course, I see no difference in the safety of the guns as regards the owner. For the robber, thief and murderer I do see a safety advantage.
Do the lawsuits seem roughly comparable to this situation:
Ford getting sued by the states for every pedestrain that gets killed while a car they made is being used illegally?
(stolen car running from cops)
Should Ford be responsible?
Of course not. How would we ever build anything if we had an unlimited chain of liability?
I am sure there were people who said this in England and Australia a mere 5 years ago. Now there are total gun bans in those “free” countries.
At least understand that there are now TWO recent real life examples of the slippery slope going all the way to the bottom.
Tracer covered this as well, but it may have gotten lost in the shuffle:
This means EVERY gun store I have ever been in has to decide if it is going to sell AR-15’s and other so-called “assault weapons” or S&W. Same thing with pre-ban clips.
I have a feeling that if the other manufacturers do not cave, it will be mighty hard to find a S&W even if you wanted one.
This is also a backdoor attempt at banning certain weapons.
Consider it a warning. The extremism is turning off sympathetic fence-sitters like me.
If I was buying a gun, I would be concerned about children possibly getting into it; even though I have none of my own, perhaps my little cousins come over to visit. Sure, I can lock up the ammo and all, but kids are smart. Safety is important to me, not just effectiveness. And I vote with my dollars for manufacturers who seem concerned about the public, seeing as I am a member of that public.
Simply because I do not currently own a gun, do not be so quick to divvy us up into “us” and “them”. I loved popping the heads off of tulips with my BB gun as a child (my mother was not so amused) and I’d jump at the chance to try target shooting. I can see myself getting a gun just because I like shooting at things; I certainly don’t have any better explanation as to why I have a deer-hunting bow (the only things I’ve shot were targets).
I don’t understand what you said. What do you mean?
So if in response, the car manufacturer put in safety features, you would refuse to buy it? Does the reason the car manufacturer put in a safety feature matter? If you wish to punish every manufacturer who compromised and added a safety feature when they were in the right just to have vast amounts of time and money, there’s certain to be a huge list for you to start boycotting. I’ve worked in a law firm; when we’re billing $1/2 mil a month, the companies will settle if they get a reasonable offer, even if they could win the case.
Also, were any of those lawsuits from parents of children who were killed by guns without trigger locks? In that case, the gun was not used illegally. You can argue that the child shouldn’t have had access to the gun, but you can say the same for kids that lock themselves into trunks–they shouldn’t have been playing there without sufficient supervision.
And I bet I could dig up a country that moved from banning kiddie porn to banning all pornography. Sometimes things move along, sometimes they stall, sometimes they regress. “Slippery slope” seems the last refuge of the extremist; you see it in pro-lifers who want all abortions banned even when the mother’s life is in danger, and pro-choicers who want 9th month abortions on a whim. If you can’t argue against something on its own faults, but can only appeal to what it might lead to, don’t be surprised if I don’t listen too hard.
[Edited to fix ^%$#! quote tags–Gaudere]
[Note: This message has been edited by Gaudere]
Gaudere-
Freedom said:
You replied:
Yes, it does matter. We’re supposed to have a representative form of government which enacts legislation according to the will of the people, within the context of the separation of powers that provide ‘checks and balances’. Instead, what we’re seeing here is one faction of government (the executive branch), forcing its will on a privately owned business without the benefit of the legislative (representative) process. The administration ‘justifies’ the bullying with all sorts of ‘safey’ claims. Some of us see a malevolent intent behind this kind of action.
::
OK, explain it to me since I may not have all the details straight. As I understand it, a bunch of people are suing S&W for various gun deaths. S&W decided to cut their losses and end the suits by agreeing to add some safety features. The govt. gives them a contract (which I’d do too if I was the govt.–it’s good PR to go with the manufacturer who has lots of safety features and “public concern”). Where is the govt. forcing anything on the manufacturer without the legislative process? I’m not being sarcastic here–I don’t see the connection offhand. Corporations add safety features to their products due to lawsuits–even frivolous ones–all the time.
It is the governments that are sueing the Gun Manufacturers. If it was individuals, it would be entirely different.
City Governments and HUD (Federal gov’t)
The proper route for the government to enforce laws, is through legislation. The way they are doing it now, nobody has a say in the process.
In addition, they are using tax money as an incentive for them to fold, once again passing any opportunity for public involvement.
Then again, this is a Constitutional issue. We need a case in front of the Supreme Court to decide waiting periods, banning certain guns, registration and licensing. Civil lawsuits with crippling monetary damges is not the way we need to decide how the Second Amendment is interpeted.
I’ll be back. (Church you know )
Extremism is a two-way street.
We pro-gunners wouldn’t be so extreme in our camp if the gun-grabbers hadn’t initiated force against us in the first place (thanks, Lib!).
We just want to be left alone; we want existing laws to be enforced; we want truth seperated from political and emotional rhetoric.
You don’t, can’t or won’t see our position because you won’t, can’t or don’t want to.
As I said, my links weren’t making an argument; I was attempting to throw some light on the issue.
As the Media seems content to represent the issue so lopsidedly, I was trying to let some of you see the “Other Side”.
Like I stated in the Guns why do you Americans love them so much topic, I’m through fighting and arguing with uninformed…ooooohhhhh! This ain’t the Pit, so I’ll refrain.
And take note: in both of my posts there, I clearly stated up front that I’m not making an argument, merely stating my thoughts and position; maybe I’ll amplify it in further writings and call it my Manifesto.
I’m tired of arguing with people who are not in full possession of the facts, and who either can’t be bothered to inform themselves or blithely ignore them once presented.
Reread Artful Standards of Civility and Socialized Medicine (it’s not about free health care).
ExTank
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000317/ts/crime_guns_8.html
“The suits were being pursued by 30 cities, seeking to recover the cost of rising cost of gun violence, as well as several counties and states across the nation. The federal government, alarmed by a series of recent school shootings, had threatened to join the action unless there was a swift settlement.”
So the Clinton Administration wasn’t in on it yet, after all. If I may distance this from the whole gun-rights thing for a sec, your argument that the government shouldn’t be allowed to sue manufacturers because it is a sort of sneaky legislation is interesting. If, say, criminals were chronically stealing cars and running people over, would it be out of line for the local governments to sue the car manufacturers for not putting in sufficient safeguards to prevent such misuse? Would it be out of line for local governements to sue car manufacturers for not putting in sufficient safeguards to prevent children from locking themselves in trunks? Do you think governments suing manufacturers can ever be justified and under what circumstances?
I would very much like to see a honest description of what the lawsuit was in fact alleging. It has been my experience that lawsuits that seem unjustified at first, upon closer examination have adequate merit. Judges and lawyers are by and large smarter than people give them credit for, and completely baseless cases do get thrown out regularly. Does anyone have a link where I can read about the offenses alleged in the lawsuits? I have been unable to find anything on the net.
BTW, Bush is apparently not screaming bloody murder about this decision: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20000317/pl/clinton_guns_35.html
“Governor Bush supports child safety locks and other measures to keep guns out of the hands of juveniles and criminals,” spokesman Ari Fleischer said. “He is pleased Smith & Wesson has chosen to provide safety locks and encourages gun owners to use them to protect children.”
Freedom wrote:
Nope. My S&W model 686 revolver came with a 4-inch barrel. I prefer it to a 6-inch barrel, as the front end of the gun doesn’t weigh as much (and is thus less fatiguing to hold on target).
Gaudere wrote:
Many gun shops have indoor shooting ranges where you can do just that. I’d recommend starting with a .22-caliber rimfire rifle or handgun. .22 rimfires are the “preferred” caliber for competition target shooters, and in fact the most expensive and accurate civilian guns in the world are generally of this type for exactly that reason. .22 rimfire ammo doesn’t kick very much, isn’t very loud, and is dirt-cheap – making it not only the best choice for the experts, but also the best choice for new shooters. It’s hard to go wrong with a .22 rimfire.
I support the right of individuals to own guns. I fel it is expressly protectd by the second ammendment. I do not feel the second ammendment prevents universal gun registration. I would like to see universal gun registration in this country. I would also like to see penalties imposed upon any gun owner whose weappon kills a human being or is used in the commission of a crime. There would be no penalty if said gun owner had reported the gun lost or stolen in a timely manner.
If you cannot keep track of your weapon, then you are a danger to us all.
I am troubled by the element of the S&W agreement that relates to the sale of ammunition clips – that seems unfair restriction of trade. I am not troubed by any other element of the agreement itself.
I am troubled by the means used by the government to coerce this agreement. However, S&W is not a small company and it certainly posessed the means to test the lawsuits in a court of law if it had felt the case or the principal warranted it.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
That BLOODSUCKER President Lincoln & those EVIL ABOLITION INC.!!!
They want to take my GOD-GIVEN CONSTITUTIONAL right to own SLAVES!!!
And they are willing to accept a CERTAIN LEVEL OF VIOLENCE to take them!!!
Fortunately me and MILLIONS of other FREEDOM-LOVING AMERICANS have the NREA, the NATIONAL RIGHT to ENSLAVE AFRICANS to expose Lincoln’s EVIL PERFIDY!!!
Now that they have won the 1860 election with SATAN’s help - they will not STOP until they convince 2/3 of the states to overturn the SECOND AMENDMENT!!!
But in JESUS"s NAME we will resist!!! We will never SURRENDER!!! We will BUY & SELL BOTH SLAVES & GUNS (and automatic conversion kits) to anyone with MONEY!!!
WE ARE NOT WHACKOS!!!
WE ARE MAINSTREAM!!!
I’M TALKING TO YOU - SOCCER MOMS!!!
…a long, long time ago, the NRA taught me how to safely handle firearms and shoot straight.
There is not much debate here.
You can divide people roughly into three groups:
Those who believe all citizens should be unarmed.
Those who believe only citizens that have governmental approval may be armed.
Those who believe the 2nd amendment says what it says.
Not a lot of give in any of those groups, so you don’t expect to make much headway. Therefore, a little humor in heated debates can be a good thing.
Which brings me to my point:
I could have sworn I posted a joke in this thread (around Post 29 or so). Did it get deleted?
I didn’t delete anything, and I don’t think David did either. As a general rule, when we delete a post (for excessive obscenity or what have you, not multi-posts) we email the person and tell them why the post was deleted. Perhaps it is a false memory, Mjollnir. 
Two points. First, the only reason I disagree with your statement about registration is that once registration is mandatory, it becomes a trivial matter to go door to door and confiscate. And that WILL happen eventually. It should be obvious that the goal of the people in power (whether in politics, entertainment, what have you) is to eliminate gun ownership. Period.
The other point is that the Clinton administration is not trying to repeal the 2nd Amendment. That is too bold even for them. What they are doing is the same strategy being used against EVERY little thing they don’t approve of:
a) regulate ownership. Done.
b) tax it to death. Done as well.
c) use the media (MTV???) to manipulate the public’s opinions and vilify it. Done again.
d) support frivolous and unreasonable lawsuits against manufacturers, making it economically infeasible to continue supplying their products to the public, thereby avoiding the hassle of having to outlaw them, which of course would never fly with the people.
Now that you’ve successfully used this tactic against cigarettes, use it against guns.
The differences? Philip Morris may have more money, but guns are protected by the Constitution. Prohibition does not work. And it will not work.
There are no dangerous weapons,
Only dangerous men.
Joe Cool
Um, sorry, I don’t follow, or perhaps you should phrase it less strongly. IIRC, cars are registered (and they aren’t even a right!) and I don’t forsee cars being confiscated as an inevitable consequence of that. Nor is it obvious to me that the goal of people in power is to eliminate gun ownership; for some, it may very well be, but a great many are pro-gun as well.
I have often run into th e “registration will inevitably lead to total confiscation” argument, but I have never seen it supported in a way that I found persuasive. I do not think it “obvious” that the US government and all of its representatives want to remove all guns from teh hands of citizens. I do not think it is inevitable that registering guns will result in the Supreme Court suddenly forgetting that the constitution has a second ammendment. There is a middle ground to this debate; it involves the understanding that rights and responsibilities should be exercised together and that accountability is not an infringement of rights.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
Nixon wrote:
Tsk tsk tsk, Nixon, you know it takes a 3/4 majority, not merely a 2/3 majority, of the states to ratify a new Amendment.
Those of you who believe these lawsuits against legimate gun manufacturers was not inteneded to drive them out of business should read the text of this conference call between the president and the mayors of the cities bringing the lawsuits. This is a press release from the Whitehouse.
Read it all, but especially near the bottom, where they are gloating over their belief that legitimate manufacturers cannot continue to exist without gov’t purchases, which they say will not be forthcoming to any other manufacturer who decides to not cave in.
This is a patheticly transparent use of the judical system to create de facto legislation.