Can capitalism help solve the gun problem?

a reply to: madenusa

Thanks for the link. This is what I mean but I did not explain myself very well.

" Can Capitalism help solve the gun problem ? "

I don't view violence as a ' GUN PROBLEM ! '

I understand the intent. It's the threads title I find problematic.

Cheers

Thanks have downloaded it to listen to tomorrow (late here).

I lose iq points every time I read the title of the thread.

I was not aware that US gun manufacturers were protected by law against litigation.

Yah, because hand wringers been trying to lay blame for criminals using guns to kill at the gun makers door since Brady got shot.

Makes as much sense as blaming car makers for intentionally using a car during a robbery or running someone down, even by accident.

By demonizing firearms manufacturers, they single them out for blame so legislation can be enacted to stop selling firearms to law abiding citizens.

Thats the real agenda behind the hype, disarming America. Wish they would clamor as loudly about the same manufacturers shipping arms overseas where they wind up in the hands of the worst kind of criminals.

Lawyers run the world.

next...

Gun problem? I think he means criminal problem.

If buyers wanted those features, gun manufacturers would provide them. Remember, businesses are greedy. If there is demand for a certain feature, some business will offer it to consumers. It is that simple.

The reason those features are not popular is because no one has developed them to the point that someone is willing to risk their own safety for those features. In other words, what if the RFID fails when you need your gun immediately? Sometimes finger print readers don't work. Most people who own a gun don't want any questions about whether it is going to work. If you need to pull your weapon, you don't have time to wait for some new fangled electronic nanny.

Wait... There is a gun problem?

Nope, sorry, no smart-guns. My luck, I wouldn't be able to get to it, and I'd have to yell to the wife to throw it at the invader. Making anything electronic only screws up the simple beauty of it. Look at cars. Now that they are smart, they are also ugly, and don't want to work if some little tiny 200 dollar sensor goes out.

I like my cars dumb. I would like to keep the guns that way as well. Blaming the manufacturer is not a common sense approach. Are we going to take it all the way back to the strip-mining company that harvested the ore for the shell casing? Are we going to sue the smelter that made the lead? Maybe sue China for inventing gun-powder?

Nope.. Then who can we possibly blame?

Oh the criminal that did the crime. That's right.

a reply to: deliberator

Not that all arms sales are from guns... far from it. But you are suggesting economics solve a problem that has been shown to be very economically sound to begin with, as Guns sell. And Guns usually increase in value, if they aren't crap to begin with, unlike any money put into a savings account. Gun sales have increased. So you must expect to offer a dangling carrot that is better than the current way of making money to convince the gun makers to change a thing, including supporting politicians. And with Republicans in control (HA HA HA.... as if it weren't actually Chaos there) on Congress and Republicans also buying up the gun manufacturers.... it doesn't seem likely.

Yes. If I had more capital I could buy more guns.

originally posted by: deliberator



"Start with the introduction of safety features including radio-frequency identification systems or biometric trigger locks like those on an iPhone, preventing unauthorized use of a firearm by anyone other than its rightful owner. With safety established as a unique selling point, what might be called the Volvo of guns could even emerge, leading a shift away from marketing that almost exclusively emphasizes the lethal capabilities of firearms."
[/url]

That sounds like a positive option. Of course it may not come without issues for other reasons-such as unable to locate the proposed identification in an emergency to potential hacking of the system though may stop a lot of criminals- but still may be a start.

Though, am more skeptical of If it wasn't this sham of crony Capitalism, then maybe it can do something.

a reply to: deliberator

Problem with that is the fact that it makes no sense.

Other company's (IE auto makers.) are sued because there product did not work the way it was designed to.

If you use a gun to shot someone and it works, then it works the way it was designed to. They have NO responsibility over YOUR actions. Does Ford get sued if I run over someone 20 times in the parking lot? Nope, I used the car for an illegal act.

If I let my kid have the keys and he drives the car into a ditch and kills himself. Is Ford sued? Nope, the car worked fine. The paerent is the one that let the kid behind the wheel.

Now if the gun safety failed, or it fired with out someone pulling the trigger. I agree sue them and make them take the responsibility for a flaw in the design.

Next you will be wanting to sue the knife industry because someone usedd it to kill instead of cutting their steak.

a reply to: dreamingawake

This was the part I thought had merit. I remember an article I read recently about a US kid who died as he got hold of his father's gun (it was not locked away). Yes of course the father was careless but that doesn't help the kid who is now dead. Edumakated and Bobaganoosh make valid points which suggests it would be fraught with difficulties in the real world.

The title of the thread is the Reuters columnist's words (not my own). He made it as a positive statement. I changed it to a question.

a reply to: Shamrock6

I had not thought about that. What you say makes sense.

Its not a gun problem, its an immoral people problem. Guns don't get up on their own and kill people. There's always a finger behind the trigger just like there's always a driver behind the wheel of a drunks car, but we don't blame the car do we.

He believes that by allowing the free market to work on gunmakers and distributers it would create an economic incentive to ensure that their products don’t wind up in the wrong hands.

That isn't the job of manufactures, and they are messing with the Bill of Rights, and the 14th amendment once again.

The only legal responsibility gun makers have it to make sure it works and doesn't blow up more or less.

HOW IT's used is not on the maker.

Just another end run around the constitution.

this is like saying when someone gets drunk and does something illegal, that they should be able to sue jagermeister.

Plus, the irony of this idea is, guns are designed to kill. You want to sue the manufacturer because their product did the exact job it was designed....

"There is no nation of people under the sun that doth love equal and indifferent justice better that the Irish, or will rest better satisfied with the execution thereof, although it be against themselves, as they may have protection and benefit of the law when upon just cause they do deserve it." His Master of the Court of Wards, Sir William Parsons said: "We must change their (Irish) course of government, apparel, manner of holding land, language and habit of life. It will otherwise be impossible to set up in them obedience to the laws and to the English empire."

This world is full of people who are just as stupid as the Muslim who thinks he will get 72 virgins when he gets to go to some place he has nothing but ignorance about, or vile dogma to support his delusions.

Yes, that means you as much as it means a General of the elite fighting forces known as Marines. It is especially true about those you know who say Hitler was to blame or there is no conspiracy. Your leaders like FDR have told you truth but you would not listen because you like the three cars in your garage and cannot see how colonial enterprises put food on your table. Yep, every US President has confessed. FDR said he knew "If it happened it was planned." And his letters with one of the planners are available if you really wanted to know some truths. That planner who communicated with FDR, that I am referring to is the actual MOST important man of the 20th Century - not who Time/Life said was that MOST austere individual - FDR!

Many of you are British or some other vile group of demons as your Bible might call the lowest form of life. Can you imagine the Black and Tan or the Potato famine used to wipe out your Irish brothers was arranged by your leaders and authors of your Bible?

Sir John Davies was one of the paladins of the Stuart king of England who crafted a new Bible. The Stuart/Jacobin intrigues of war and aristocracies are just one aspect of an interesting alternative history that might make sense of why prejudices were fostered rather than collective pride and joy in learning and growing as a human family. Sir John was the Attorney General of Ireland under James I and he observed:

"There is no nation of people under the sun that doth love equal and indifferent justice better that the Irish, or will rest better satisfied with the execution thereof, although it be against themselves, as they may have protection and benefit of the law when upon just cause they do deserve it." His Master of the Court of Wards, Sir William Parsons said: "We must change their (Irish) course of government, apparel, manner of holding land, language and habit of life. It will otherwise be impossible to set up in them obedience to the laws and to the English empire."

The movie Lord of War with Nicholas Cage documents real life circumstances as he is paid when getting out of jail after being caught with his pants down after his wife informed on him. The scroll at the end of the movie reminds me of the scroll in the JFK movie with the Eisenhower warning about the Military-Industrial Complex. You probably know about that but maybe you don't recall what the Lord of War scroll says - the top gun runners are the five permanent members of the UN Security Council! The General of the Marines I referred to wised up after he left the US armed forces.

Major General (Top Marine rank of his day) Smedley Butler knew the US armed forces were used to force imperialistic corporate agendas. He was a true hero in every aspect of normal life! If he had lived a little longer we would have seen what McCarthy was because Butler would not have allowed the lies to spread without some major speeches and effort.

"The following is an excerpt from a speech he gave in 1933:

“War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

www.fas.org...

a reply to: deliberator

Personally the idea makes sense but equally it would be like having kitchen knife manufacturers protected from knife crime.

The big difference is that kitchen knives aren't designed to maim or kill.

Nobody owns a double barreled butter knife, a semi automatic filleting knife, or a steak knife with a red dot scope.

I understand the need to protect ones family but who are some of these yosemite Sams expecting to knock on their door? CIA? Spetsnaz? Honestly if push comes to shove no arsenal can stop a precision aerial strike or a meticulous raid by professionals.

IMO some people who hoard certain weapons are either a dealer or incredibly paranoid. No offense to the genuine gun enthusiasts because it's the actions of others that give the genuine collectors a bad wrap. Winchester? Beretta? Best left on the mantelpiece. I don't believe the true gun nuts should be punished for the actions of a few nutjobs.

However I don't believe certain guns should be so readily available and no one can truly claim to have their hands clean when it comes to mass shootings- The manufacturer makes the guns, the retailer sells the guns, and the criminals pull the trigger.