Yesterday, I speculated about public reaction to some hypothetical gun maker problem analagous to Toyota's out-of-control-cars. I contrasted that with Violence Policy Center executive director Josh Sugarmann's . . . remarkable assertion that gun manufacturers are "the last unregulated industry."
As it happens, Sugarmann has just recently continued with that theme, with his "Gun Industry Continues to Produce More Lethal Weapons."
The trend is long and all-too-easily documented, beginning in the 1980s when six-shot revolvers were replaced by high-capacity pistols.
This was followed by: assault weapons; powerful palm-sized pistols labeled “pocket rockets” by the industry; “vest-busting” handguns like the 50 caliber Smith & Wesson Model 500, capable of penetrating the most common level of body armor worn by law enforcement; and, 50 caliber sniper rifles capable of penetrating armor plating and downing jetliners on take-off and landing at distances of up to a mile. The common thread connecting each of these technological “advances”?
Increased lethality, eagerly marketed by the gun industry with no concern for public safety.
Sugarmann is not referring to shoddy manufacturing or poor design, rendering firearms "more dangerous." Actually, improved metallurgy and other advances have arguably made firearms considerably safer than many designs popular decades ago. What Sugarmann objects to instead is the increased capablity of modern firearms--capability he does not believe should be available to private citizens.
Basically, Sugarmann wants a government mandated firearms technology rollback to at least the 1920s (Dieudonné Saive invented the double-stack "high capacity" semi-automatic pistol magazine, first made famous in the Browning Hi-Power pistol, in the '20s). Actually, as discussed yesterday, he wants all handguns banned (never mind D.C. v. Heller establishing the Constitutional protection of the right of citizens to possess handguns). He wants to ban so-called "assault weapons"--basically watered-down (by virtue of beling semi-automatic only) 1940s technology. He also wants .50 caliber rifles banned (which, come to think of it, means the tech rollback would have to extend to the 1910s, when the .50 BMG cartridge was developed), and also smaller than .50 caliber "sniper rifles."
It seems to me that if we want to talk about gun regulation and gun safety, a decent case could be made for the argument that over-regulation has decreased safety. A good example would be the more the draconian regulation of suppressors ("silencers," in popular parlance) for the last 75 years, and the ensuing, otherwise very avoidable hearing loss among many shooters. Another example would be the 10-year sentence and quarter million dollar fine for adding a second handle, to help stabilize a large pistol (particularly useful for a paraplegic like me, with my limited trunk strength).
Oh--one more thing. Yesterday, when I was talking about Toyota's problems, I missed an opportunity to point out that there is a lot of speculation that the problem in many (most?) of these cases could be rooted in electronics. Now, consider that so-called "smart gun" technology--mandated in New Jersey, and lauded by such luminaries as Missouri Congressman Russ Carnahan (D-3rd District) and President Obama--depends on electronics. That idea is looking less and less appealing all the time (and it looked pretty ugly from the very beginning).
Atlanta: Ed Stone | Austin: Howard Nemerov | Boston: Ron Bokleman | Charlotte: Paul Valone | Cheyenne: Anthony Bouchard | Chicago: Don Gwinn | Cleveland: Daniel White | DC: Mike Stollenwerk | Denver: Dan Bidstrup | Fort Smith: Steve D. Jones | Grand Rapids: Skip Coryel | Knoxville: Liston Matthews | Los Angeles: John Longenecker | Minneapolis: John Pierce | National: David Codrea | Parkersburg: Nicholas Arnold | Phoenix: Douglas Little | Pittsburgh: Dan Campbell | Seattle: Dave Workman | St. Louis: Kurt Hofmann | Tucson: Chris Woodard | Wisconsin: Gene German
Comments
another great Gem. The cornerstone of any anti-gun argument are lies and confusion. You've uncovered one big ruse, that somehow today's technology is so much more dangerous than the "Good-old-days", but of course back then we had more-or-less the same stuff.
One nit to pick tho, I believe Savage arms had a double-stack pocket gun around the turn of the century, and a few years before the Browning Double-Stack saw production.
Thanks, Weer'd. Wouldn't surprise me if you're correct about Savage beating Browning to the punch on double-stack mags, although I'll stick to my guns (so to speak) on my assertion that the Hi-Power has had by far the more enduring legacy.
This is embarrassing - your arguments are shallow and factually incorrect. Guns=death. Toys for boys with no sense of humanity.
Kurt's arguments are eminently logical, "savior", and the hypocrisy, duplicity and stupidity he point out among the anti-rights crowd is in fact real. Since you can't really do logic, I assume you're a liberal, and I offer you my sympathy. Maybe they'll come up with a medicine for it some day.
The medicine that might help you is called education. You might want to check with your doctor first though - I am assuming you might be allergic.
savior, cars=death knives=death you are a moron
Alright, "savior"--care to point out an instance of "factual incorrectness" in my arguments?
you're gonna want those guns when the dems take over the entire economy and try to run your life-->reference the "salt ban" of New York.
You cant just regulate and ban guns to fight these problems. Violence is a symptom. Morons like Sugarmann don't seem to understand that people kill people and have done so long before we had guns, and taking them away or limiting their availability wont stop criminals who get their weapons illegally. How about getting tough on prison sentences for a change?
For Savior:
Just stop and think about the history of this country and why the bill of rights came to be. The 2nd Amendment states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Now why is this important? Without the checks and balances put in place by our constitution the Government would be more corrupt than it already is. The ability to maintain a militia keeps the government from bullying its people. I find it extremely offensive that the general public is limited to the make/model of any firearm and/or weapon for that matter. Frankly I find any law restricting any law abiding citizen (of any real constitutional law) unconstitutional. How is our wonderful nation supposed to overthrow a tyrannical government that restricts the ability. Not that I have plans to over throw our government, but a well armed militia a powerful political tool (much like our nations Armed Forces)
and sorry about the grammatical errors. I didn't proof read before I posted, I am uneducated after all
The Violence Policy Center is just another bunch of disingenuous clowns that do not want to "get a real job." So they hide behind an imagined "crisis" of their own making so that fools will send them money and the sycophantic media will heap praise upon their efforts to remake America in "their image."
Al Gore, the Greens, environmentalists of all stripes have this game down perfectly. They scare little children into high anxiety and sleeplessness until they donate their lunch money to whatever group has promised to "save" something, whether it be whales, birds, the planet et al.
Savior,
Back to the day of upright walking man has been killing man bare fisted. Put a tool in his hand and a way to murder will follow. That makes man inharently evil. Taking away the tools does not remove the evil. The UK is an example of taking one tool and another tool fills the void.
Try working on fixing the evil in man.
while i agree with you to some extent.
i think you're claim that regulating silencers is draconian is the dumbest thing i've ever heard.
the only case you have against it is that it could prevent hearing loss. put on some ear protection you idiot.
the reason you want to regulate silencers is so criminals like the dc sniper can't have them. Imagine if the dude was popping off shots from a silenced rifle rather than one that loudly gave away his position. how many more lives might have been lost?
you're case against the regulation of silencers is stupid and easily solved by a trip to home depot where you can get ear muffs designed for lawn equipment that should work fine
or you could go on the internet and easily find some heavy duty ear plugs that are washable and reusable for like $15.
Great article Kurt. Being a big technology buff, I can appreciate the "idea" of so-called smart gun technology. In theory it could stop guns from being used against people. Truth is like most technology nowadays, it will eventually be circumvented... rendering it all useless.
The fact of the matter is that no matter how smart you make the gun, it will still be wielded by an emotional and otherwise flawed human being. There is plenty of "technology" out there that can make guns much safer for those that do not want to have accident. When my child is born, I'm going to get some "safety bullets" (google it). This, imho, is far more useful than any electronic "safety" as it can't fail.
For some reason liberals would rather people just not have firearms than to actually hold people accountable for their actions. I guess it's too much work.
I've had a love affair with guns because it reminds everyone about my theories of human evolution and natural selection. If an idiot chooses to hurt/kill him/herself with gun then that's nature at work reducing the gene pool of idiots. It's all very elegant.
Says jbone: "i think you're claim that regulating silencers is draconian is the dumbest thing i've ever heard.
the only case you have against it is that it could prevent hearing loss. put on some ear protection you idiot."
Thanks for that thoughtful comment, jbone--you have indeed elevated the discussion.
When at the range, I wear both ear plugs and muff-type hearing protection. Has it occurred to you that safety might be enhanced by not being rendered functionally deaf while at the range--i.e., by being able to hear what's going on around you?
The D.C. "sniper" case is an odd one to bring up, since Malvo and Mohammad were not caught by following the sounds of their gunshots.
I used to debate Sugarmann in the '80s when he was with National Coalition to Ban Handguns. He has not changed a bit: deceitful, ideologically driven, unwilling to work with reality. I'm surprised Obama hasn't nominated him to head the ATF.
According to the CDC, there were 18,573 homicides in 2006. Out of those homicides, 12,791 of were from the discharge of firearms*. I grew up around firearms. I go shooting when I get the chance. I think firearms should be regulated (not completely taken away). It's far too easy to kill someone with a firearm than other means (i.e. with a knife)-it's just point and shoot, literally.
* Table 18 of the cdc report: www.cdc.gov/NCHS/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_14.pdf
jbone,
Yes, hearing protection can be used but getting a tracking/fetching dog to keep his or hers on has posed a functional problem. Hence the free sale of silencers in several European countries to the benifit and health of hunting animals.
"When at the range, I wear both ear plugs and muff-type hearing protection. Has it occurred to you that safety might be enhanced by not being rendered functionally deaf while at the range--i.e., by being able to hear what's going on around you?"
you can easily wear your safety equipment while you leave the range in a safe and responsible way. are you seriously suggesting ear plugs effect your ability to do this at a shooting range?
by the way, i'm all for owning guns and against pretty much all forms of fire arm restrictions, with the exceptions being silencers and fully automatic weapons... but if these things were limited to use solely at designated areas, a la cars that are not street legal being limited to race tracks, then i don't have any problem with it. guns are sweet pieces of machinery. that being said i still see no reason for anyone to own silencers or fully automatic weapons.
and forgive me for not assuming you had other reasons beside the terrible one you sta
The D.C. "sniper" case is an odd one to bring up, since Malvo and Mohammad were not caught by following the sounds of their gunshots
people did however know to take cover after shots were fired... which may not have been the case with a silenced weapon.
Zack,
There is a difference between "mortality" and "murder". You need to break out the CDC data better.
According the the FBI crime satistics for 2006 (same year you are pulling). Total murders by firearm tally at 10,177. Explicitly stated are the exclusions of justifiable homicides by private citizens and law enforecement.
www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/violent_crime/murder_homicide.html
jbone,
I was at the Ashland sizzler. 9 out of 10 people though it was a vehicle backfire. I remember the first victim mowing his lawn. His neighbors though nothing of the loud noise till they noticed the lawn mower running with no one pushing it. When thay then noted the body prone on the groundand their first thoughts were not "shooting victim" but cardiac arrest.
Jbone, it is mandated by law in some European countries that if you are going to shoot, you must use a suppressor.
I'm afraid the rational people here are arguing with a toad. He/they don't like guns and will always try to "think" of some reason for justifying their irrational feelings no matter how ridiculous their current excuse may be.
jbone,
I was at the Ashland sizzler. 9 out of 10 people though it was a vehicle backfire. I remember the first victim mowing his lawn. His neighbors though nothing of the loud noise till they noticed the lawn mower running with no one pushing it. When thay then noted the body prone on the groundand their first thoughts were not "shooting victim" but cardiac arrest.
@Dave, Thank you for clarifying the statistics. I didn't mean to mislead.
@Kent, Calling someone irrational and using airquotes (without backing up your opinion) are just ad hominem attacks, nothing more. It's ironic that you are talking about people basing their opinions off feelings when you, yourself are doing the same thing.
Can anyone get the comments page navigation links to work? The "Next" and "Previous" links to see other groups of comments. They don't work for me, and I've tried three different browsers.
Says rk: "Can anyone get the comments page navigation links to work? The 'Next' and 'Previous' links to see other groups of comments. They don't work for me, and I've tried three different browsers."
Unfortunately, that's a longstanding problem that I (and others) have complained to Examiner about, and have not seen any progress in getting it fixed.
I apologize for that.
In a land where guns are actively used in both hunting and self defense, saying "put on/in hearing protection" is a bit moronic. The rest of life often doesn't wait for you to put in/on safety gear. LEOs and .mil entry teams use mufflers so that they can operate without being deafened. Anybody that watches a gunfight in a movie and then people whispering to each other in-between volleys of shots obviously hasn't shot many guns. You fire one standard .357Mag in a defensive situation in your home, for example, and you will lose usage of your television and stereo for a number of days and most probably find yourself sometimes trying to start your car here and there with it already running. You may get a permanent noticeable ringing in your ears as a bonus.
My ears are gone due to a lifetime of noisy pursuits, but I wouldn't wish the malady on anyone and you do better tactically if you aren't deaf.
As for increased lethality...you'd rather be shot 30 times by my AR than once by my .50-110 or Brown Bess. Just saying...you could maybe live through being sieved by 5.56.
Sugarmann and the Brady bunch have always had to rely on disingenuous prevarications to make their case. As the public learns the truth support for their agenda fades away, and so it should.
One minor point, the Browning Hi Power is also known as the P35 because it was first introduced by Fabrique Nationale in the year 1935. While John Browning contributed to the design it was not put into production until well after his death.
Uncle Lar, you're correct about the timeline of the Hi-Power's official introduction, but from what I've read, Browning had submitted two models for consideration for the contract, both using Dieudonne Saive's double-stack magazine design, in the 1920's.
Source:
bit.ly/aEATZa
As a DAV (Disabled VET), as a matter of coincidence, I have written several times (via Certified Letters) my Senators & c.c.'d: RON PAUL, OSHA, ALL the leading LIB Politicians [since they claim to be the champions of the 'handicapped' in this country {sic}] & others - pushing for a BILL that would rescind the unconstitutional & infamous '2nd Handle' Fed./State Laws. Handicapped have special 'Parking Spots', walkways, stair guides, shower handles... the list goes on & on, but NO PROVISION for a mandatory manufacturer-supplied 'Handicap Handle' for our Defense. Its way overdue! If we all championed support for the Handicapped, we'd realize 'Handicapped Handles' - as I'd prefer all would refer to them from as here-on in- the AMerican Public would easily get behind it - for the SAFETY OF ALL!! And isnt SAFETY what the LIBS always tout? U BET!
So Lets start talking about 'Handicapped Handles' for ALL!! It should be OUR choice - for the Safety of America.
That's a good idea, GR8GUY--I need to start doing the same thing (I should already have been doing it).
So how many of the firearm related murders were by gang bangers and all forms of fellons that are not allowed the possesion of firearms in the first place. You can't regulate a fellon not to posses somthing. They will get it illegally by stealing or illegal buys on the street. These laws only hamper the law abiding from self defense. per 10 day waiting period in California. There is not one schred of data that shows that gun control works
GR8GUY:
Dude, you are a genius!
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!