The December 6th issue of U.S. News and World Report (a hardcopy magazine for those of you who never get your news outside of the World Wide Web) ...had a story on smart guns "Taking Aim At The Weapon Makers". The
subject of the story was Stephen Teret who wanted to petition the court system to create a new area of gun law to force gun manufacturers to behave as he would wish. Teret's main point was that gun makers were the most unregulated industry in the nation. If aspirin has safety caps, so should guns.
I read each of the letters to see if mine got printed (nope), how many would be from gunnies and how many would be from anti-gunnies. There were five letters printed. All of them were sent in by the pro-gunnies, including VP and General Council of Sturm, Ruger. If this "trend" continues, we may have to stop whining about media bias.
I'll do a brief summary of some of the insightful points made my each letter writer. I did not download this but am typing it from the hardcopy, so any typos are yours.
First from Stephen L. Sanetti of Sturm, Ruger remarked that guns were not aspirin and "childproof" aspirin does not exist, instead the packaging is altered to "childproof" containers. Ruger goes on to say that since 1987 they have been shipping pistols in lockboxes with a padlock with no child
injuries if the gun was properly stored. Ruger might have added, but didn't that child poisonings have gone up since the introduction of these new drug packages perhaps due to a false sense of security (leaving them out). Not to mention the your arthritic grandma who can't get to her
medication now.
The next letter was from Jerry Hollombe, a Certified Firearms Instructor from Winnetka, California. Jerry points out the famous scene of a Handgun Incorporated (HCI) spokesperson who "badly flubbed removing a trigger lock from a handgun under ideal conditions in a brightly lit room with no time pressure and plenty of preparation. Imagine the results if he had to do it
with no warning at 3:00am in a dark bedroom with potentially murderous burglars rampaging through his home." Jerry promoted training NRA-style and cites the fact that firearms accidents have been cut in half (since 1920)
even though the number of guns in circulation has quadrupled while the population has doubled.
David A. Dawson of Reynoldsburg, Ohio takes a Constitutional point of view. "I was appalled when I read Teret's plan to ban guns by 'asking the judges to create a new aspect of gun law.' I was under the impression that
it is up to the legislatures...to create laws. Judges are supposed to interpret law, and if the law is unconstitutional, strike it down, but I know of no provision in the Constitution for judges to make laws. Since
firearms regulation is a topic that has been discussed at legnth at every level of government, Teret cannot claim that he is asking the courts to consider a neglected area."
Hooo boy. Davey was on fire. If my typing fingers weren't so sore I would have done his whole letter.
Next was David L. Mahaney from Royersford, Pennsylvania. Davey wrote a fairly short ditty informing the reader that his weapons are in the home for his wife and children to use to defend themselves when he is not
around. "Safe technology" would render the guns useless, and his family unprotected. He warned about the false sense of security "safe guns" would invoke in family members. Says Dave, "I prefer weapons that are inherently dangerous and deadly. No one will confuse what they are. I have taught my
wife and children how to safely use and handle firearms. To make an inherently dangerous weapons 'safe' is a concept only a trial lawyer could love, because only a trial lawyer could make money off of a 'safe' weapon that fails."
Last was Howard A. Brown from Freeport, Pennsylvania. Howie begins by quoting Teret, "'What in the world is going on when gun manufacturers are making guns that can be operated by 4-year olds?' My question is, 'What in the world is going on when a parent leaves a loaded gun where a 4-year old
can easily get it?' Teret seems to forget that his friend's gun (which killed his 22-month old) already came "childproofed" from the manufacturer -- it was empty. His friend chose to override the childproofing when he loaded the gun in his home and left it in a 'nearby nightstand' where his
4-year old son could easily reach it. Perhaps Teret's quest is the right thing, however. It would undoubtedly be easier to make a "smart gun" than to make a "smart person."
Just more arrows for your debating quiver.
Rick
[This message has been edited by RickD (edited December 29, 1999).]
subject of the story was Stephen Teret who wanted to petition the court system to create a new area of gun law to force gun manufacturers to behave as he would wish. Teret's main point was that gun makers were the most unregulated industry in the nation. If aspirin has safety caps, so should guns.
I read each of the letters to see if mine got printed (nope), how many would be from gunnies and how many would be from anti-gunnies. There were five letters printed. All of them were sent in by the pro-gunnies, including VP and General Council of Sturm, Ruger. If this "trend" continues, we may have to stop whining about media bias.
I'll do a brief summary of some of the insightful points made my each letter writer. I did not download this but am typing it from the hardcopy, so any typos are yours.
First from Stephen L. Sanetti of Sturm, Ruger remarked that guns were not aspirin and "childproof" aspirin does not exist, instead the packaging is altered to "childproof" containers. Ruger goes on to say that since 1987 they have been shipping pistols in lockboxes with a padlock with no child
injuries if the gun was properly stored. Ruger might have added, but didn't that child poisonings have gone up since the introduction of these new drug packages perhaps due to a false sense of security (leaving them out). Not to mention the your arthritic grandma who can't get to her
medication now.
The next letter was from Jerry Hollombe, a Certified Firearms Instructor from Winnetka, California. Jerry points out the famous scene of a Handgun Incorporated (HCI) spokesperson who "badly flubbed removing a trigger lock from a handgun under ideal conditions in a brightly lit room with no time pressure and plenty of preparation. Imagine the results if he had to do it
with no warning at 3:00am in a dark bedroom with potentially murderous burglars rampaging through his home." Jerry promoted training NRA-style and cites the fact that firearms accidents have been cut in half (since 1920)
even though the number of guns in circulation has quadrupled while the population has doubled.
David A. Dawson of Reynoldsburg, Ohio takes a Constitutional point of view. "I was appalled when I read Teret's plan to ban guns by 'asking the judges to create a new aspect of gun law.' I was under the impression that
it is up to the legislatures...to create laws. Judges are supposed to interpret law, and if the law is unconstitutional, strike it down, but I know of no provision in the Constitution for judges to make laws. Since
firearms regulation is a topic that has been discussed at legnth at every level of government, Teret cannot claim that he is asking the courts to consider a neglected area."
Hooo boy. Davey was on fire. If my typing fingers weren't so sore I would have done his whole letter.
Next was David L. Mahaney from Royersford, Pennsylvania. Davey wrote a fairly short ditty informing the reader that his weapons are in the home for his wife and children to use to defend themselves when he is not
around. "Safe technology" would render the guns useless, and his family unprotected. He warned about the false sense of security "safe guns" would invoke in family members. Says Dave, "I prefer weapons that are inherently dangerous and deadly. No one will confuse what they are. I have taught my
wife and children how to safely use and handle firearms. To make an inherently dangerous weapons 'safe' is a concept only a trial lawyer could love, because only a trial lawyer could make money off of a 'safe' weapon that fails."
Last was Howard A. Brown from Freeport, Pennsylvania. Howie begins by quoting Teret, "'What in the world is going on when gun manufacturers are making guns that can be operated by 4-year olds?' My question is, 'What in the world is going on when a parent leaves a loaded gun where a 4-year old
can easily get it?' Teret seems to forget that his friend's gun (which killed his 22-month old) already came "childproofed" from the manufacturer -- it was empty. His friend chose to override the childproofing when he loaded the gun in his home and left it in a 'nearby nightstand' where his
4-year old son could easily reach it. Perhaps Teret's quest is the right thing, however. It would undoubtedly be easier to make a "smart gun" than to make a "smart person."
Just more arrows for your debating quiver.
Rick
[This message has been edited by RickD (edited December 29, 1999).]