Guns and the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission.

[hack89]

Just wanted to correct a mistaken understanding regarding guns and the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission that was posted in the other forum.

This was posted:

Guns, it's worth noting, are one of the only products not regulated by the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission.

This is the reality:

Products excluded from the CPSC's jurisdiction include those specifically named by law as under the jurisdiction of other federal agencies; for example, automobiles are regulated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, guns are regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, and drugs are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Consumer_Product_Safety_Commission#Activities

The concept is simple - only one agency has the power to regulate any given product to ensure no conflicting regulations.

[Duckhunter935]

1. Well, they do not like facts over there

I am sure they all all in an uproar over this. Not to mention they will start the insults in their little protected sanctuary when they see this.

[anoNY42]

2. Thanks for this

I was banned from the "other forum" for discussing the effectiveness of a certain gun control measure. I then read the SOP for that forum, which includes the mandate to discuss the effectiveness of gun control measures. I then gave up trying to understand that place...

[NashuaDW]

3. You too?

seems like that are a lot of us banned.

I got the boot for trying to interject facts and statistics into their emotion-driven arguments.

[beevul]

4. Don't feel too bad.

More than 1 of us were blocked for posts we self deleted (wrong group by accident coming from the front page), which those doing the blocking never saw.

Its not business with them, its personal.

[anoNY42]

6. Yep

I love the "latest threads" page, but I did make that same mistake with the gun control group. However, in my defense, I did not say anything anti-gun-control, I just made a point that the measure they were discussing would probably be ineffective.

[Duckhunter935]

8. I agree

One of the hosts even bragged about preemptively blocking people even before they post. That one also runs to Skinner whining that this group is allowed on DU.

[DonP]

11. They aren't fans of the 1st amendment either

On multiple occasions they have tried to silence any and all opposition to their POV.

That seems to be their "Go To" solution to anyone that disagrees with them.

Couple that with all the self appointed Zampolits that drop by and try to run this group and you have a picture of intolerance squared.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

12. Is it intolerant to disdain intolerance?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[beevul]

13. Cubed even. N/T

[Duckhunter935]

7. Join the club

They do not really want any discussion in that group. It got so bad for a long time the hosts even ran away, lol. Now it's only the same few back-slapping each other.

[LongtimeAZDem]

10. I was banned just for answering a question about sporting goods stores that don't sell guns (nt)

[benEzra]

14. I think I was banned over there for posting the FBI Uniform Crime Report stats on rifle homicide,

but it's been quite a while since I ventured into the fundamentalist sanctum sanctorum, so I'm not sure.

[beevul]

5. I'm sure it was just an innocent error.

Those nice folks in the other forum and the cult they worship surely never intend to mislead.

[JonathanRackham]

9. Glocks are specifically named in the product defect lawsuit.

I had a conversation with an FBI agent several year ago. The standard issue handgun for the field agents is a Glock in the .40 caliber. The same handgun is used by the Secret Service. The same .40 Glock is also one of the most common handguns used by police departments throughout the US. Glocks in 9mm are in common issue to European police and military armies. The USMC is currently considering one of the Glock models in .45 for its reconnaissance marines in lieu of the 100 year old 1911 design.

Apparently we have an unsafe product protecting our president and protecting millions of citizens.

I've read multiple accounts of accidents, negligent discharges and other things done with handguns and Glocks. I've come to the conclusion there are people too stupid to own guns (the list includes some cops), cars and in some cases computers. I refuse to hunt and trap shoot with some people, it's the person and their sloppy habits and not the shotgun.

If only revolvers were issued to the police then we'd see an increase in the number of negligent discharges with revolvers, seeing as how revolvers are near obsolete for police use the negligent discharge rate is currently near zero. Does this make revolvers any safer than they were years ago? Hint: NO.

People who drive cars have a higher probability of doing something negligent with a car. The FBI guy I talked with said he'd never trade in his Glock for an alternate handgun design. The design is reliable, durable and simple. (He thinks smart guns are really stupid and ultimately unsafe.)

There has been a litigation trend lately that has the loser of a case paying the legal fees for the other side. The AGs will be paying the bills for Glock with taxpayer money.