Go Back   Motorcycle Forum > Motorcycle.Com General Discussion > Motorcycle News > Old News > Paranoid News Clips

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-05-2003, 01:25 PM   #41
jkgooch
Founding Member
 
jkgooch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 32
Default Re: let's try a different tack..so maybe

Here:



http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/041003.pdf



It is a 63 page document, filled with interesting details and anecdotes, but for some red meat just go to .pdf page 42 (doc p.33). Skip to the bottom and read the section entitled "The Gun Industry Ignores Crime Gun Tracing Data."



Here (a magazine article):



http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/M..._mayjun03.html



"MOST STRIKING ARE STUDIES SUGGESTING THAT A VERY SMALL NUMBER of distributors and dealers are responsible for the majority of handguns used in crime. In 2000, ATF released a comprehensive report showing that nationally, about 1 percent of the dealers who sell to the public are responsible for 57 percent of the handguns traced to crimes. ATF traces 200,000 guns used in crimes each year. For each trace, the agency contacts the gun's manufacturer with the model and serial number and requests the identity of the distributor to whom the manufacturer sold the weapon. Over time, these trace requests give the manufacturers a clear picture of which distributors are putting guns into the hands of criminals. "



Here (for the ATF's Youth Crime Gun Trace Reports):



http://www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/2000/index.htm



Pick you favority city!



Basically, every time the FTA traces a gun used in a crime, they notify the manufacturer. Since the manufacturer knows which dealer they originally sold the gun to, it is a simple step to figure out who is selling to criminals. If you sell a deadly thing, that is in fact being used to kill, it would seem the least you could do would be to prevent it being sold to criminals to the best of your ability.

jkgooch is offline   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links Remove Advertisements
Motorcycle Forum
Advertisement
Old 12-05-2003, 01:43 PM   #42
jkgooch
Founding Member
 
jkgooch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 32
Default Re: let's try a different tack..so maybe

Dear brother BrowningBAR,



There are two choices here: either the gun industry can take some responsibility for the product it sells, or the FTA can beef up enforcement. I don't care which. But since everyone on the pro-gun tip is so anti-regulation/government, I see this as a unique opportunity for the gun industry to exert a little personal responsibility. Of course the weilder of the weapon is held responsible. Of course the guy who sold him the gun should also be held responsible if he knew the dude was unfit. If the guy who sold the gun to the dealer knew that that dealer sells to a lot of criminals, then he should be held responsible--negligent at the least and reckless, even knowing, at the outer edge. Follow the criminally used guns; don't sell to the guys who sell to those guys.



The Wal-mart nit-pick is just as easy to fix. If BigChemCo continually gets big orders for lots of chemicals from only 3 or 4 Wally Worlds, and those Wally Worlds consistently dump the ***** into the stream, then you bet your ass I'm going after BigChemCo--espcially since in this context THEY KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON. That, in the end, is the root of liability.



OF COURSE the dealer is criminal. OF COURSE that person should be punished as well. But not one single dealer sells as many guns to criminals in a year as, say Sturm Ruger (pick yer fav). And while one dealer can only clean his shop, a manufacturer can trace many, many shops.



As far as what you have, ***** I could care less. Assuming that you're no felon, actually signed your 4473, and don't shoot at people with your Browning, fine. I LOVE shooting guns off. There's few greater rushes than squeezing off a burst. But if you are a criminal, and the guy who sold to you commonly sells to criminals, and Browning knows it, then they should by held partly liable if you wind up wiping out a classroom of school children.



And as far as I can see, I'm the only one who's offered any facts (see post in response to "where," above), so I guess I'll line them up any way I please. Cheers, and keep yer powder dry.
jkgooch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2003, 01:47 PM   #43
jkgooch
Founding Member
 
jkgooch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 32
Default Re: let's try a different tack..so maybe

PS: and this can answer to Ser. as well. That's precisely the problem. The laws don't compel a tighter reign on the dealer network. If the dealer network were contracted for differently there wouldn't be that problem. I agree that anyone with a FFL can buy firearms, but to my knowledge fair trade laws do not preclude a manufacturer from establishing a licensed dealer network for exclusive retail. If you choose that route, you can control many of the most important functions and qualifications of the dealer, and you can drop them from your network if the keep popping up on the ATF list. That does not conflict with fair trade.
jkgooch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2003, 01:59 PM   #44
BrowningBAR
Snuggles

 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: In a really, really, really old farmhouse
Posts: 4,369
Default Re: let's try a different tack..so maybe

What I'm trying to get at is that, as a dealer, you do not have to buy from the manufacturer. I could buy from other dealers and wholesalers.



I understand what you are trying to get at, but it just isn't a praticle solution.



Going after the gun makers isn't the proper choice. If these individuals are selling to felons, that is already against the law. And no matter how many new laws you make, if they aren't enforced you will still have the same problem.
BrowningBAR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2003, 02:42 PM   #45
kowalke67
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 291
Default Re: a whole quarter pound of

And lets not forget beer, wine, and whiskey. I'd love to see the statistics of every crime or accident that was commited with alchohol involved. I don't hear everyone saying "let's ban booze" (hey, I don't want to either) but they sure do want to take away guns, motorcycles, hunting, video games, how much nipple a girl can show in a strip club, etc. Add up all the mischief created with those sources and I bet it doesn't equal that created by alchohol (well, maybe that nipple thing)




Sure, go after white collar crime, I agree but busting theiving drug dealers is not a waste of time.
__________________
\"Wait, I think I just -- Yea, I just had an idea.\"
kowalke67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2003, 03:42 PM   #46
F451
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 373
Default Senator Bill Jack-n-off and the Angels

Let's just hope that where the Angels land, so lands Senator Bill Jack-n-off. There's a party goin' on...
F451 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2003, 04:29 AM   #47
ValknMag
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 107
Default Re: let's try a different tack..so maybe

The ATF exists to investigate such things, and to enforce firearms laws. Why haven't they revoked the license of the dealers? It is not up to manufacturers to enforce laws.



Wall paying taxes to support ATF, but now the gun manufacturers are supposed to do the agency's job? Don't you think you deserve a little government accountablility? That they should do what we are paying them to do?
ValknMag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2003, 04:33 AM   #48
ValknMag
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 107
Default Re: let's try a different tack..so maybe

"There are two choices here: either the gun industry can take some responsibility for the product it sells, or the FTA can beef up enforcement. I don't care which. "



It doesn't sound like 'beefing up.' It sounds like doing the job they were created to do.
ValknMag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2003, 08:10 AM   #49
jkgooch
Founding Member
 
jkgooch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 32
Default Re: let's try a different tack..so maybe

Well, as I said I don't care which. But your answer begs the moral question: must I only do the right thing when someone is watching? Obviously not. The ATF doesn't pull licenses often enough (though they do do it) basically because they haven't the manpower to monitor dealer traffic and complete the rest of their mandate. More funding would get them more manpower and allow them to do both. The choice, therefore is between bigger government and personal responsibility.



Since we can't seem to fund the new Homeland Security Department or, indeed, supply enough funding to our myriad national security concerns including the promised additional funding to local and state agencies and first responders to respond to threats from without, never mind native wackos, I'd say that the best answer is for the manfacturers to step up the plate and do the right thing.



The other option is to insist that the FTA do more than it can, funded at current levels, and that if there aren't enough folks to handle the job, then we'll just have to live with the consequences. I'm not ok with that.



The root of the question is moral, frankly. If you're supplying an inherently dangerous article to people who you know will allow criminals to use it, even in a regulatory vacuum you ought to have enough of a sense of right and wrong to know that that isn't right.



Due to lack of funding we have a de facto regulatory vacuum when it comes to dealers. If people can't handle that responsibility, then when their childish and selfish actions harm others, they should be held accountable for their lack of conscience.



So: choose to repeal pointless tax-cuts, reverse deficit spending and properly fund enforcement agencies or choose to allow tort suits to reach manufacturers and distributors of deadly merchandise. I don't care which.



Given the basic principle, of course, I don't care if we have both, either.
jkgooch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2003, 08:39 AM   #50
ValknMag
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 107
Default Re: let's try a different tack..so maybe

You make it sound as though the ATF pulling a license is a new mandate, or outside its purview. It is, in fact, the primary reason for the ATF's existance. There is no excuse for that. If the gun manufacturers were selling to unlicensed dealers, the manufacturers are culpable. However, shipping clerks at the manufacturers do not have a list of dealers to whom they cannot sell. They ask for a valid license, and sell to those dealers who can produce one.



Let's take the argument away from guns, perhaps clear the air a little bit. General Motors should be sued out of existence because they sold a Cadillac to a friend of Janklow's. The friend was a straw man in this case, but GM should have known it. Janklow had been pulled over numerous times in the past, but never prosecuted, and his license had never been revoked (just like the dirty gun dealers).
ValknMag is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off