Controversy Over Legal Protections For Gun Companies
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2013-02-04/controversy-over-legal-protections-gun-companies
A 2005 law protects gun companies from liability suits, making it difficult for victims of gun violence to challenge the industry. Diane and her guests explore how gun makers got special protection, and new attempts to change the federal law.
Guests
Josh Horwitz
executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.
Richard Feldman
president of the Independent Firearm Owners Association.
Peter Wallsten
national politics reporter at The Washington Post.
Andrew Arulanandam
director of public affairs at NRA.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
steve s wrote:
"You are wrong. I was t rying not be overly long. Both sides of this debate tend to dramatically oversimplify in my opinion."
(I think you were talking to me, though it's always hard to tell when you don't include a quote.) Well, okay. But for some reason, you seem to be unable to bring yourself to make any specific criticism of the pro-gun control side. I'll believe it when I see it. (Which I probably won't, because as soon as I finish writing this I have to go out to shovel off the sidewalk. Already about four inches, it looks like, and still falling.)
steve s also wrote:
"I think the majority of persons stopped taking personal responsibilty a generation or more ago."
Sigh.... You're probably right. But we don't have to like it, do we?
I agree completely with Mr. Feldman that we need to be very accurate when we speak about gun violence and when he talks of Seung-Hui Cho buying guns, it was for the Virginia Tech massacre not Columbine. This indicates to me that we have so many gun massacres in the USA that even those most closely involved with this topic of gun violence can’t keep the massacres straight.
I give my thanks to the Diane Rehm program for the many times this topic has been presented to the public. With each discussion, we listeners learn more about how absurd our gun laws are, how unprotected we citizens are from gun violence and how protected the gun industry is from any threats to their bottom line.
clifffromparma wrote: " Gun ownership has no liability,only denial and secrecy."
There is plenty of liability if you misuse it.
Dan D.
"Spurwink Rod and Gun Club. I`m tired of doing your home work."
"Many gun and shooting clubs,,even target ranges require NRA memberships... What a racket..."
Dan, didn't you know? "One" constitutes "Many". He got this from the Huff post website. Spurwink Rod and Gun Club has about 300 members as of a year ago, does not have a website (except for FB), and is just one of thousands and thousands gun clubs and ranges in the country.
By the way, the controversy at Spurwink about having to join the NRA to shoot is not new. It goes back at least a couple of years, but I can't find a SINGLE other club that requires NRA membership. The claim that "many gun and shooting clubs, even target ranges require NRA membership" is specious. In fact, public ranges MAY NOT exclude non-members by law.
steve s wrote:"I think whenever the amounts of money come into play that are on the table in the case of gun ownership, I think there is always an implicit bias. I think it is disingenuous to brag on number of new members without acknowledging how they are acquired."
"implicit bias" the NRA has a stated bias, not sure what you mean.
The NRA always gets a sizable surge of support when second amendment rights are under attack?
"how they are acquired" you seem to imply that something unethical has taken place, what would that be?
I finished my snow clean up!
relphl wrote:
"How about requiring insurance on guns, as we require insurance on cars?"
Good idea. I'm sure that criminals will happily pay for insurance for their guns.
ecgberht2, The bright side of this controversy, it does seem as though that the people that are interested are getting educated about the second amendment and the motives of the leadership in the democrat party.Wishful thinking maybe. Diane seemed almost beat down at the start of the show, things are not going as well as I think she and many other democrats had hoped for for their long term gun ban agenda.
Dan D. wrote: I finished my snow clean up!
And so have I, now! But it's after two o'clock, so I'm signing off for the day.
sonofecgtheow wrote:
"My stance is that guns should never be brought into public areas by any citizens, licensed or not. That's reserved for law enforcement agencies only, in my opinion. The NRA supporters probably feel threatened that only police officers would have guns on the streets though."
That is false, of course. NRA supporters are big supporters of the police - they are not "threatened" by them.
"Or, they would contend that they may have to take down a bad guy when the cops are not around to do the job."
That's more like it. Beowulf, did you know that with a single exception (the AZ shooting) EVERY mass shooting since at least 1950 has taken place in a "gun-free zone"? So how's that "guns should never be brought into public areas by any citzens, licensed or not" working out? Do you think Adam Lanza or James Holmes cared what the "rules" were?
"I think she and many other democrats had hoped for for their long term gun ban agenda."
When Rahm Emanuel said, "you never let a good crisis go to waste", he said a mouthful. In one statement, he has changed my whole way of thinking about and perception of liberal/progressives and their motives, but more importantly, their methods. If they are nothing else, they are patient, but when the opportunity presents itself (the "crisis") they are ready. When your whole modus operandi is based not in fact or ideas, but in an emotional plea to the low-information media consumer, it makes total sense. Fascinating to watch, actually.
Dan D. wrote:
"Diane seemed almost beat down at the start of the show, things are not going as well as I think she and many other democrats had hoped for for their long term gun ban agenda."
... Actually I'm not signing off yet. I must defend Ms. Rehm again against these "agenda" accusations. Her only agenda is to let the public hear about what's going on. I do think she might be Democrat, but only because of her "quiet old lady" image and the fact that she's a woman. No personal bias ever reveals itself, and she talks the same way to E.J. Dionne and Matthew Continetti.
Also, I would amend "many ... democrats" to "some Democrats," because most Democrats don't want a gun ban anyway and because small d democrats don't necessarily have anything to do with a political party - they just support democratic principles.
Now, I must ask a question. Dan D., are you THX1138 in another guise? I know where I last saw the "agenda" allegation. And I know beyond doubt that formerly Clifford is now clifffromparma, because of the "NeoNutzi" thing.
(Also, why did ecgberht become ecgberht2? Or are they two different people?)
Please reply. I'm staying online.
"In one statement, he has changed my whole way of thinking about and perception of liberal/progressives and their motives, but more importantly, their methods."
Me too. I would add to that, that no matter what they are able to achieve through legislation, it will never be enough. The proposed assault weapons ban is indicative of just that, no intelligent person believes this would change anything.
Firearms are obviously NOT a deterrent to criminals. In fact, they are an attractive nuisance. Firearms are a primary inducement for thieves to break in and take them.....they are expensive and, when purchased by "law abiding citizens", become traceable ONLY to the law abiders, NOT the thieves. Guns are a target of choice. If you contact your local law enforcement to let them know you will be absent from your home for an extended period, one of the first questions they ask is "Are there any guns in your house?"
The topic today covers legislation and protection for the arms industry; so, are there similar protections for rope salesmen or owners of tall buildings or ladders or hari kiri swords? People hang themselves (and others), use knives and swords for stabbings and suicide, jump from buildings and bridges, take poison, and cut their wrists with razor blades. Conversely, there are laws restricting the sale and use of alcohol, drugs, and autos. Should marijuana growers and distilleries now be protected?
NOTE: contrary to LaPierre et al, there are no efforts to "take away" sporting weapons or personal protection use guns; Wayne is "Obfuscator in Chief".
The Last Moderate wrote: "No personal bias ever reveals itself, and she talks the same way to E.J. Dionne and Matthew Continetti.'
I have been listening to her for at least 15 years, I believe there is a strong bias. I am not going to waste time trying to convince you. If you don't see it, what can I say.
Dan D. wrote: "no matter what they are able to achieve through legislation, it will never be enough. The proposed assault weapons ban is indicative of just that, no intelligent person believes this would change anything."
Some intelligent people do believe this will make a difference. I am not one of them. For one thing, there is no strict definition of an assault weapon, and if the legislators come up with one, gun manufacturers will just make minor tweaks to their assault weapons' designs and continue selling them under a different name. (This happened last time they tried the ban.)
For another, even if somehow the ban genuinely made it impossible to manufacture more assault weapons, I am sure it would grandfather in all assault weapons from before the ban took effect. Thus countless (because nobody keeps track of them) assault weapons would remain in circulation, among law-abiding citizens and criminals. Probably there would even be a period of some months before the ban would take effect after it had been passed, and gun manufacturers would sieze that opportunity to push to sell as many assault weapons as possible in that time. People who like assault weapons would eagerly stock up. (This happened last time, too.)
This is, of course, only theoretical arguments. But here's solid proof that an assault weapons ban doesn't work in America: Columbine.
HA wrote:
"Firearms are obviously NOT a deterrent to criminals."
When the criminal is being fired upon, I would beg to differ.
LM wrote:
"(Also, why did ecgberht become ecgberht2? Or are they two different people?)"
DR Show MB has some ... shall we call them ... quirks? I have exchanged emails with the MB webmaster about this. Certain IDs from certain IP addresses get blocked. And under the right (or wrong) circumstances, no matter what anyone does the MB software will place any post from that ID and that IP address on the "manual review" list. I don't think anyone monitoring the MB ever looks at that unless specifically asked to so essentially the ID becomes dead. In my last exchange with the webmaster (last spring), he said that they were looking at new MB software that would give them more control over this issue. It was to come on line in the fall (2012), which obviously has not happened. I have progressed from ecgberht to ecgberht1 to ecgberht2 because of this issue, keeping the identity as intact as I could so other participants would know it was the same poster.
One very last comment today. About old Tee Aitch Echs Eleven Thirty-Eight.
The last words I remember him writing were:
"... Ha Ha Ha Ha"
He filled several lines with that, as I recall. When I saw it, I began to suspect that he was some sort of sociopath.
But then Batman caught up with him and he had to go back to his cell in Arkham.
(By the way, Batman supports a total gun ban.)
If THX1138 has been banned from this website, I am glad. But he hardly deserved it more than current commenters clifffromparma and Dan D. do if they can't make themselves calm down and start conversing like people, rather than like Rahm Emanuel would if he wasn't allowed to use profanity. (I can't believe anybody that foulmouthed could ever hold a public office!)
How's this, guys: Spend some time at ProCon.org. Read a few books from Opposing Viewpoints. If you're around the University of Michigan, read Consider magazine. Become moderate, reasonable people in daily life and online.
Wouldn't the world be a nice place if everybody did that?
Good Night.
The Last Moderate wrote: "Some intelligent people do believe this will make a difference"
If they can read and understand statistics and still believe the ban would reduce violence, then I would question their intelligence.
FBI stats, all rifles account for 2.6% of murders, all rifles not just "assault rifles" blunt objects 3.9%
Who made you the word police Last Moderate?
Dear Diane.
Thank you for addressing so many important issues. I listen to you as often as I can.
I wonder if you have thought about doing a program about gun control from an emotional perspective.
Today's panel was made up of rational officials representing different parts of the legal battle. But, the question I wanted to ask each panel member was, do you personally own a semi-automatic weapon and if yes, what do you shoot with it?
Using language that is real puts gun owners on the spot. Do you own one, what do you shoot? Do you think they should be used to shoot people in a non-combat situation? Why do gun owners want certain guns. What does each type of gun represent. Hang gun, shot gun, semi automatic. Uncover the emotional attachment to guns. Why guns?
I am a rational, stable, working American woman but I feel irrational about this issue. Help us get to the core of this issue but exposing the reasons why people think they need guns. Do they live in a dangerous neighborhood? What are the facts about needing a gun in this society. We've made major shifts in the way we eat, the way we drive, the way we purchase things by talking about the facts and understanding the emotions behind our behavior.
You are in a position to look at this issue in many different ways. Please consider the emotional side as well as the policy side.
Thank you.
Isn't the issue here Assault weapons, high velosity clips, back groung checks on all , even at gun shows? Not all the "gobly gook" the NRA and it's followers are talking about. That's a smoke screne. The NRA is a gun LOBY and will stop at nothing to prtect it's clients and their MONEY. Guns for all any time, any where, NO questions asked. We can never stop all the killing. There are tooooo Many GUNS out there. Were are talking about "saving lives" The Assault weapon "thing" can be done! It's got nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment are taking your guns away. That would be IMPOSIBLE.
But remeber the Paul Simon song, The BoxER, "a man believes what he wants to and disreguards the rest."
And I love want my Uncle used to say,"don't bother me with the facts Joe, my minds made up.
mogulhead wrote: "high velosity clips" and "don't bother me with the facts'
Comparing the liability of auto manufactures to arms manufactures is not the best. In that analogy the liability is for a defect in the product. Using that logic, victims of the Colorado shooting should sue because Holmes's gun misfired.
I think a better analogy is that the liability should be similar to that of a bartender who continues to serve alcohol to a drunken customer who then kills others with his car.
Hey Dan D. it's Mogulhead. So u don't think banning assault weapons will do any good or save lives. That is what were R talking about here, right. Saving lives. Back in 94 a 10 year assault band was but into place. In 04 it came up for renewal and Bush admistration/Congress didn't renew it. How many lives have been lost on both sides of the border because of the MILLIOINS of AK-47's, Glocks and 100's of Millions of Ammo that have been sold since then? You can't even buy one at a gun show today because they are all sold out. Sorry folks.
Banding assault weapons, big clips and taking away the gun show loop holes is a nobrainer. Is it a fix all, of course not. Will it save lives. Of course it will.
Did beefing up autos adding air bags stop drunks from driving them and auto accidents from killing people, NO. But it saves lives.
Passing a permanant Band would cost us nothing. What do we have to lose but more lives Noone in Washington is talking about taking our guns away. There are to many out there. Would be IMPOSSIBLE. Any numschull knows that. Don't we have enough kids killing other kids with semi-auto pistols irresponsable carless fathers leave laying around bullet in chamber and safety off. Read about it all the time.
If your SCARD say your SCARD. But this is the sensiable, responsible, honorable thing to do.
Would the NRA lose face, lose clients, lose money. Sure. They are a gun lobby. The rest be hanged.
Steve Toth a GOP lawmaker here in Texas said this month he would file a bill to make it illegal to enforce any federal law banning semi-auto guns or limiting the size of gun magazines within the state boundries. The Wild wild West. and he has small children at home, Crazy man crazy.
Hey Dan D. it's Mogulhead. So u don't think banning assault weapons will do any good or save lives. That is what were R talking about here, right. Saving lives. Back in 94 a 10 year assault band was but into place. In 04 it came up for renewal and Bush admistration/Congress didn't renew it. How many lives have been lost on both sides of the border because of the MILLIOINS of AK-47's, Glocks and 100's of Millions of Ammo that have been sold since then? You can't even buy one at a gun show today because they are all sold out. Sorry folks.
Banding assault weapons, big clips and taking away the gun show loop holes is a nobrainer. Is it a fix all, of course not. Will it save lives. Of course it will.
Did beefing up autos adding air bags stop drunks from driving them and auto accidents from killing people, NO. But it saves lives.
Passing a permanant Band would cost us nothing. What do we have to lose but more lives Noone in Washington is talking about taking our guns away. There are to many out there. Would be IMPOSSIBLE. Any numschull knows that. Don't we have enough kids killing other kids with semi-auto pistols irresponsable carless fathers leave laying around bullet in chamber and safety off. Read about it all the time.
If your SCARD say your SCARD. But this is the sensiable, responsible, honorable thing to do.
Would the NRA lose face, lose clients, lose money. Sure. They are a gun lobby. The rest be hanged.
Steve Toth a GOP lawmaker here in Texas said this month he would file a bill to make it illegal to enforce any federal law banning semi-auto guns or limiting the size of gun magazines within the state boundries. The Wild wild West. and he has small children at home, Crazy man crazy.
Hey Dan D. it's Mogulhead. So u don't think banning assault weapons will do any good or save lives. That is what were R talking about here, right. Saving lives. Back in 94 a 10 year assault band was but into place. In 04 it came up for renewal and Bush admistration/Congress didn't renew it. How many lives have been lost on both sides of the border because of the MILLIOINS of AK-47's, Glocks and 100's of Millions of Ammo that have been sold since then? You can't even buy one at a gun show today because they are all sold out. Sorry folks.
Banding assault weapons, big clips and taking away the gun show loop holes is a nobrainer. Is it a fix all, of course not. Will it save lives. Of course it will.
Did beefing up autos adding air bags stop drunks from driving them and auto accidents from killing people, NO. But it saves lives.
Passing a permanant Band would cost us nothing. What do we have to lose but more lives Noone in Washington is talking about taking our guns away. There are to many out there. Would be IMPOSSIBLE. Any numschull knows that. Don't we have enough kids killing other kids with semi-auto pistols irresponsable carless fathers leave laying around bullet in chamber and safety off. Read about it all the time.
If your SCARD say your SCARD. But this is the sensiable, responsible, honorable thing to do.
Would the NRA lose face, lose clients, lose money. Sure. They are a gun lobby. The rest be hanged.
Steve Toth a GOP lawmaker here in Texas said this month he would file a bill to make it illegal to enforce any federal law banning semi-auto guns or limiting the size of gun magazines within the state boundries. The Wild wild West. and he has small children at home, Crazy man crazy.
NRA wayne is not crazy, he has a MILLION reason$ why he is opposed to ANY gun control laws. The gun NUTS will continue to support the unchecked proliferation of guns until one of their own is slaughtered. It may take time but we will eventually follow the Australian model, Buy back and Ban.
mike dell wrote:
"It may take time but we will eventually follow the Australian model, Buy back and Ban."
Not going to happen. At the time the Australian buy-back went into place, approximately 7% of Australians were gun-owners. It's "slightly" higher here (closer to 50%).
"ecgberht2 wrote:
LM wrote:
"(Also, why did ecgberht become ecgberht2? Or are they two different people?)"
DR Show MB has some ... shall we call them ... quirks? I have exchanged emails with the MB webmaster about this. Certain IDs from certain IP addresses get blocked. And under the right (or wrong) circumstances, no matter what anyone does the MB software will place any post from that ID and that IP address on the "manual review" list. I don't think anyone monitoring the MB ever looks at that unless specifically asked to so essentially the ID becomes dead. In my last exchange with the webmaster (last spring), he said that they were looking at new MB software that would give them more control over this issue. It was to come on line in the fall (2012), which obviously has not happened. I have progressed from ecgberht to ecgberht1 to ecgberht2 because of this issue, keeping the identity as intact as I could so other participants would know it was the same poster.
February 4, 2013 - 2:56 pm"
Does that answer your question LM???
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com