Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Gun Control Without Gun Laws

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
KamaAina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-29-09 03:44 PM
Original message
Gun Control Without Gun Laws
How Obama can use government procurement regulations to limit gun violence. More good stuff from former NY gov Eliot Spitzer.

http://www.slate.com/id/2217117

Ever since Al Gore lost the presidency (sic) in 2000, the national Democratic Party has avoided the issue of gun control. The Obama White House recently made it clear—abandoning a campaign pledge—that it won't push for a legislative ban on the sale of assault weapons. Yet a series of provocative recent events has revived the gun debate: the international tension arising from Mexican drug gangs using guns purchased at American stores, the 10th anniversary of Columbine, and a Supreme Court case invalidating a District of Columbia law prohibiting the possession of guns at home....

Modern government is not only a lawmaker. Indeed, the most effective executive powers may not derive from statutes at all. The government that President Obama oversees is also a gigantic, well-funded procurement agent. And it can—and should—use that power to change American gun policies. Specifically, the government buys lots of guns, for sheriffs, patrol officers, and detectives; for FBI agents, DEA agents, IRS agents, Postal Inspectors, immigration agents, and park rangers; and for soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and spies. The government buys guns by the crate.

What is striking is that the government buys guns from manufacturers who also sell them to criminals—either knowingly or by willfully overlooking the behavior of the retail outlets that the gun companies use as their distribution system. Those of us who were in law enforcement in New York City in the late '80s and early '90s remember how drug dealers pioneered the use of 9-mm guns. We heard over and over from our friends in the police department that they were outgunned, that their service revolvers were no match for semi-automatics in a shootout. So what did the police do? The New York City Police Department finally bought 9-mms, too. It was a classic arms race, with the gun manufacturers in the economically enviable position of selling bigger and better guns to both sides....

Just as we now "purchase" good corporate behavior in the financial industry, let it be so with guns. Governors and mayors and federal officials should buy guns from only manufacturers that control their product distribution, from manufacturers that cut off dealers whose guns end up disproportionately in the hands of criminals. In the New York attorney general's office nine years ago, we proposed several ways of constraining gun manufacturers within existing laws. These same proposals could be implemented now. Nongun manufacturers across the nation routinely control how their product is distributed and impose contractual obligations on wholesalers and retailers. Gun companies should have to use a similar approach. They should sell their product through only authorized dealers. And the authorized dealers should have to keep track of how many times they got "trace" inquiries from law enforcement—that is, how many guns they sold were later used by criminals. Dealers that sold a disproportionate number of "crime guns" would have to fix the problem, something that might be as easy as retraining staff to react to "straw" purchasers who were trying to evade existing laws. Data showing that a high percentage of guns used in crime come from a small subset of dealers suggest that closing these few retailers could have a dramatic impact on access to illegal guns. Likewise, the government could require manufacturers to make a few simple design changes in the interest of safety and tracking: trigger locks, or hidden serial numbers, or a magazine safety disconnect on every pistol.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-29-09 03:51 PM
Response to Original message
1. Eliot's making a lot more sense than most people.
It's LONG since been proven that banning "scary looking" guns and harassing legal gun owners does nothing to prevent crime. Targeting straw purchasers is the only smart way to go about things.

I don't agree with his fifth paragraph; It plays to the old misconception that some guns are more dangerous than others, when the VAST majority of gun violence is done with cheap, basic unbannable handguns. For that matter revolvers enjoy a bit of a vogue among petty criminals because they're simpler and don't leave shell casings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoopla Phil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-29-09 03:52 PM
Response to Original message
2. Interesting:
Edited on Wed Apr-29-09 03:52 PM by Hoopla Phil
_______________________________________________
What is striking is that the government buys guns from manufacturers who also sell them to criminals
_______________________________________________

Kinda like car manufacturers. Hummmm

This is nothing but sophistry. If a manufacture DID in fact do this they would be held criminally liable. It is simply NOT the case.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FamousAmos Donating Member (15 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-29-09 04:05 PM
Response to Original message
3. Interesting
Thanks for posting. Some good points there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patriotvoice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-29-09 04:06 PM
Response to Original message
4. So, the government should stop buying S&W
Edited on Wed Apr-29-09 04:10 PM by patriotvoice
Since they're the maker of the weapons most frequently used in crimes:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,320383,00.html


By the same "logic", the government should also stop purchasing from Dodge, since the Charger only gets 15 MPG combined and it's "bad for the health of the country".

:crazy::eyes:

On edit:
Clarification.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-29-09 04:11 PM
Response to Original message
5. Yes, let's bypass the legislative branch..
.. and increase the idea of the unitary executive. That could _never_ come back to haunt us, could it?

:argh:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aikoaiko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-29-09 04:13 PM
Response to Original message
6. Intersting, but the devil is in the details.


Authorized gun dealers whose guns "disproportionately" get involved in crimes (as evidenced through trace inquiries) might just as well be victims of criminals as accessories. Its not easy to determine who is doing a straw purchase and who is not (except when someone is obvious about it). Its already a crime to allow a straw-purchase that could mean the loss of their FFL or jail time.

There is also the assumption that if you get rid of a few bad dealers that the criminals won't be able to fool more honest, well-intentioned dealers down the road. Criminals will never stop trying to get guns through straw purchases.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-29-09 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Or it could be through no fault of the dealer at all..
Maybe Bob's shop is in an inner city area, where guns are frequently stolen during burglaries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
-..__... Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-29-09 04:20 PM
Response to Original message
8. I'd much rather see manufacturers tell states, localaities...
that enact stringent gun gun control laws to go take a flying fuck... we're not going to do business with you anymore.

Ronnie Barret ceased sales and repair service to CA law enforcement when the state banned .50 caliber firearms.

All it would take is a nationwide boycott by civilian gun owners to compel the manufacturers to rethink the policy change mentioned in the article.

Under Bill Clinton, Smith and Wesson signed into a similar agreement with the HUD. At then time, S&W was owned by a British company that
more than likely foolishly assumed that the agreement was sound policy and that American gun owners shouldn't have a problem with it... they were wrong...

http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/ls474.htm

And even though the agreement was never really enforced, the ensuing boycott nearly sent S&W into oblivion.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-29-09 04:20 PM
Response to Original message
9. If I was in law enforcement or the military, I would prefer...
to have a high quality, dependable firearm issued to me.

I would be highly upset if I received a Brand X firearm, because some bureaucrat in New York was upset with the better firearm manufacturer's supply chain. Or if a bunch of politicians started making foolish design requirements which could make the weapon I was issued unreliable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aikoaiko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-29-09 04:24 PM
Response to Original message
10. I should have read the whole article before commenting -- this part makes me want to kick Spitzer in


... the nuts.


More fundamentally, companies could be told to stop selling certain types of weapons to the general public. If a manufacturer did not comply with any of the limitations, then it would be excluded from the list of companies with which the government would do business.


FU Spitzer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-29-09 04:25 PM
Response to Original message
11. BS "manufacturers who also sell them to criminals—either knowingly or by willfully". If anyone can
prove that statement and does not report it to ATF, that person(s) is committing a crime.

Why does any MSM hoping to be accepted as a reputable news source publish outright lies like this article?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-29-09 04:38 PM
Response to Original message
12. What a bunch of crap - the use of 9 mm guns was "pioneered" by Germany in 1902
Edited on Wed Apr-29-09 04:40 PM by slackmaster
It was developed by the German weapons manufacturer Deutsche Waffen und Munitionsfabriken (DWM) for their semiautomatic Luger pistol, and has been used as a military and law enforcement cartridge for more than 100 years. It's also been popular with the general public for about as long.

The NYPD was a little slow on the uptake.

It's illegal for ANYONE to sell a gun to someone who is prohibited from owning it. Gun dealers who follow the law and exercise reasonable precautions against unlawful sales should not be punished for the actions of criminals who manage to circumvent the system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raskolnik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-29-09 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. And the idea that police were "outgunned" by 9mm pistols is kind of laughable.
As far as I know, police have had the ability to carry .45's for quite while now. Several police officers I've known carry a 9mm because it is *less* powerful than some of the alternatives, and doesn't tend to go through several walls before ending up in a bystander's stomach.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raskolnik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-29-09 04:50 PM
Response to Original message
14. "their service revolvers were no match for semi-automatics in a shootout"
Holy shit! NY cops didn't carry semi-automatic pistols in the early 90's!?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-29-09 04:59 PM
Response to Original message
15. Where are posts by anti-RKBA types presenting facts that support the article by Spitzer & Pope? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 06:23 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC