More on Airguns
This time from THIS side of the pond.
That ever fruitful well of material, Jointogether.org, reports that the recent Daisy Settlement Shows Political Influence of Gun Industry. Let us fisk:
Before the leadership of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) changed political parties late last year, the federal agency had filed a lawsuit against Daisy Manufacturing Co., a maker of air-powered BB guns, after complaints of misfirings.
“Complaints of misfirings? No, the complaint wasn’t that the guns misfired but that they actually fired when their users thought they were empty.
The fact that their users deliberately pumped up the rifles, intentionally cocked the rifles, intentionally pointed the rifles at another person and then intentionally pulled the trigger seems immaterial.
THE SHOOTER THOUGHT IT WAS EMPTY!
That’s all that matters.
To the lawyers. And the anti-gun groups.
But now, instead of a recall, the federal agency has agreed to a settlement with the company that only involves promoting safe BB-gun usage, the Wall Street Journal reported April 29.
Well, GEE. YA THINK?!?!?
RULE #1: Always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.
RULE #2: Never put your finger on the trigger until you’re ready to fire
AND ALWAYS TREAT A GUN AS IF IT WERE LOADED.
Follow those three rules, nobody gets hurt.
But noooooo. It must be the eeeevil gun manufacturer at fault.
In 2001, the CPSC filed a lawsuit against Daisy Manufacturing, claiming that its PowerLine Models 856 and 880 were responsible for at least 15 deaths and 171 injuries, the majority involving children. Testimony by a Daisy Manufacturing engineer confirmed that BBs could get temporarily jammed in the corners of the magazine, making it appear that the gun is empty.
The guns were responsible, not the person on the trigger.
The cult of no accountability is obviously still strong.
Obviously mommy and daddy didn’t teach gun safety. Why aren’t they responsible? It’s not like it’s difficult
Treat it as though it is always loaded, no problem.
It’s stunning how many “accidental shootings” come from unloaded guns, isn’t it?
At the time, Ann Brown, who was appointed by President Clinton in 1993, served as chairman of the agency. In 2001, President Bush (Boo! Hiss!) replaced Brown with Republican Harold Stratton Jr. Prior to the appointment, the National Rifle Association (NRA) had e-mailed a “special alert” to members warning that the government’s recall could be used in future lawsuit against all gun makers.
And were they wrong?
Under Stratton’s leadership, the agency dropped the lawsuit late last year. (The heartless BASTARD!) Instead, the government accepted an offer from Daisy Manufacturing for a $1.5 million publicity and labeling campaign to promote safer use of its products.
(If it weren’t for that meddling NRA!!!)
Administrative Law Judge William Moran strongly criticized the offer, calling it “empty.” But Stratton said the lawsuit was “burdensome and inefficient” and would have led to “years of costly litigation.”
And it wouldn’t??
Understand this: The CPSC wanted Daisy to recall 7.5 million rifles because 15 people (Children™) had been killed and some 171 people (Children™) had been injured because of the deliberate misuse of their product.
But it’s the “influence of the (cue scary music)GUN INDUSTRY” that foiled this
legal assault humanitarian act.
Oh, and of course the (cue music) EEEEEVIL Republicans who WANT CHILDREN™ TO DIE!
I certainly hope they were responsible. It tells me that my dollars an my vote still count for something.
For further reading, let me recommend this piece, The ‘Daisy Airgun Case’—not CPSC’s finest hour. Money quote:
(CPSC Commissioner Mary Gall) stated:
“In my nearly twelve years of service with this Commission, and indeed, in my over thirty years of government service, I have never seen a more outrageous miscarriage of justice and abuse of the processes of public policy than this case … Some of the deposition testimony given by Commission employees show clearly that the previous Chairman ordered that the case be removed from the ordinary processes of Commission staff review because she did not like the conclusions that the career staff were reaching about the hazards associated with the Model 856 and 880 air rifles.
“… The record shows that this is a case that should not have been brought in the first place, and which has now been settled on terms substantially similar to those that Daisy proposed over fourteen months ago. Students of government who wish to see how the regulatory enforcement process can be used to harass a small company to no good purpose need look no further than this action for a splendid case study …”