To the Editor: In the Dec. 12, 2019, letter titled "e;Anti-gun crowd won't stop until Americans are unarmed,"e; after the usual banal arguments and disingenuous notions (for example, that domestic abusers don't later use guns to kill their victims enough
This item is available in full to subscribers.
We have recently launched a new and improved website. To continue reading, you will need to either log into your subscriber account, or purchase a new subscription.
If you are a current print subscriber, you can set up a free website account by clicking here.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
|
To the Editor:
In the Dec. 12, 2019, letter titled “Anti-gun crowd won’t stop until Americans are unarmed,” after the usual banal arguments and disingenuous notions (for example, that domestic abusers don’t later use guns to kill their victims enough times to justify confiscation), the writer notes that gun manufacturers are not held liable for damage caused by use of their products unless said products are defective. Why is clearly debatable, but that this law was only passed in 2005 is of specific interest to an anthropologist such as I.
Homicide rates due to guns were down 50 percent from the ’80s and ’90s by 2005. So why would the gun industry need protection from product liability when potential liability was down 50 percent? Mass shootings, specifically with the Columbine massacre. Mass shootings did occur prior to Columbine, but none quite like it in ferocity, the number of victims and the “type” of victims – middle and upper class, mostly white teenagers and teachers.
As long as the bulk of homicides were among the poor and minorities, the gun industry had little to fear from product liability litigation. But if now white suburbanites could become victims, the outrage would soon turn into litigation.
With the assault weapons ban due to expire in 2004, the continued rise of mass shootings coupled with assault weapons used against the educated and wealthier classes could have been a financial disaster for the gun industry. So Congress provides cover and the product liability immunity for the gun industry appears.
Repeal of product liability would certainly be damaging for the industry, but not fatal. Product liability is a useful tool for encouraging corporations to limit harm to consumers. Works very well in many other industries.
Nowhere does the Second Amendment suggest the gun industry cannot be regulated. My seeking regulation for your use of a product that may result in my injury or death doesn’t mean I want your guns. I have my own.
But I do want rational management of firearms. If it takes product liability suits to incentivize the gun industry to do as much as possible to mitigate the horrific damage their products do to fellow citizens, that seems a worthwhile mechanism.
Sean Hagberg
Cranston
4 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
Justanidiot
the guvmint will pry my ak-47 out of my cold dead hands.
Thursday, December 26, 2019 Report this
GeneRalno
Without the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), the hysterical ninnies, aka democrats, would sue the manufacturers out of business. What you suggest is an alternative to the democrat goal of confiscation. The U.S. would no longer produce civilian firearms and the ninnies soon would pass another law that prohibits importation of civilian firearms.
From my perspective, this nation is making great progress in reducing crime. Enabling hysterical ninnies in their quest to disarm the peaceable, lawful citizens is far from rational management. At the end of all this nonsense, 120 million armed citizens would be so enraged as to trigger a bloody revolution. Firearms owners have heard all the arguments repeatedly. Their minds aren’t likely to change.
Regardless of what federal government laws are enacted, most of the 120 million owners will ignore them because they brazenly violate the 2nd Amendment. Recall the 2nd Amendment forbids infringement by the federal government and the Supreme Court extended it to the states.
The National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) and the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) already stand as testament to our federal government's willingness to trample on human rights affirmed by the Constitution. Additional trampling will alienate this colossal population and make them more willing to ignore other laws they don't believe in. It's a recipe for revolution.
Fact is in 2018 gun homicides declined seven percent, firearm injuries declined 10 percent, fatal child shootings (under 18) declined 12 percent and unintentional shootings plummeted 21 percent. Since 1991, the murder rate has fallen by 45 percent and the overall violent crime rate has fallen by 48 percent. Since 1999, the statistical probability of a student being killed in school, on any given day by a gun has been one in 614 million. Your odds of winning the lottery are 1 in 300 million. The chances of your child being kidnapped are about one in 300,000.
It's important to remember that half the nation's murders occur in only 63 counties while the other half are spread across the other 3,081 counties. Said another way, 15 percent had one murder and 54 percent of the nation’s counties had no murders at all. The correct path for our federal and state governments is to declare victory and simply watch the crime rates decline. Fortunately, controlling what people own isn't up to you.
Thursday, December 26, 2019 Report this
JohnStark
I am not a gun owner, so no direct dog in the fight. But it seems to me that those municipalities with the highest rates of gun-related violence are also those municipalities with the most stringent gun regulations. No calls yet for 'sensible', er, "rational" machete control in light of the horrors that have been inflicted upon Jews in NY. But stay tuned.
Tuesday, December 31, 2019 Report this
Wuggly
"Nowhere does the Second Amendment suggest the gun industry cannot be regulated" That's because the Constitution doesn't regulate industry. It regulates Government.
The firearm if used as intended sends a projectile in the direction it is aimed when activated. Now if the weapon was being used in defense, hunting, gun craft competition or even in an illegal activity like assault or murder and failed due to manufacturing defect causing harm, now the company is liable.
If the firearm functioned as designed and is abused then the liability falls to the user. Assault and murder would be the users fault. Much if a motor vehicle is used to run people down, we don't blame the truck. McVeigh used a box truck in Oklahoma City. We didn't call to ban box trucks.
Saturday, January 11, 2020 Report this