John Wayne is the Duke. Elvis is the King.

John Wayne's Holster: Gun Manufacturers Don't Kill, Felons Do!
John Wayne's Holster
Visit my main blog at Monkey Wrench Revival. Visit my birdwatching blog at The Birding Nerd.

Monday, August 01, 2005

Gun Manufacturers Don't Kill, Felons Do!


Me and My Winchester


The Senate overwhelmingly passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (S. 397) on Friday by a margin of 65-31. The legislation is designed to protect lawful firearm manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits largely brought by gun-control advocates. Anti-gun activists have lobbied unsuccessful in the past for tighter gun-control measures. Failing to gain adequate support, they sought to have their will imposed on us through the courts.

Although the frivolous lawsuits have not been successful overall, they have cost the firearms industry, which operates on a small margin, over $200 million in litigation costs. As Alan M. Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA), points out, "These legal actions, backed by extremists in the gun control lobby, have no other purpose than to financially devastate the gun industry…”

In my opinion, the position of the gun-control lobby is not well founded. This legislation is common sense – regardless of where one stands on the 2nd amendment. How can one rightfully sue a manufacturer for the wrongful misuse of its product by a third party? Moreover, manufactures typically do not sell firearms directly to the man on the street. Rather, they are first sold to federally licensed wholesalers, who, in turn, sells them to federally licensed retailers, who sells them to a lawful purchaser. If that lawfully-sold firearm winds up in the hand of a felon, how is the manufacturer liable?

Unfortunately, people are murdered everyday in this country. Some are killed with guns, others with knives, and still more with diverse items such clubs, cars, hammers or ropes. Should we also sue the manufactures of these products? That would be madness!

I believe I have a solution to this problem. It may seem far out and crazy to some of you. Perhaps even radical. I suggest that, rather than going after the law-abiding gun manufacturers, we go after the criminals instead!

12 Comments:

At 1:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Put a shirt on, or get a tan!

 
At 2:56 PM, Anonymous Joe Verica said...

What? The picture doesn't do anything for you?

I had a shirt on. I was a white Carl Spackler-style tank top. I took it off for the pic because it was sweaty and had some car grease, as well as coffee and pizza stains on it.

 
At 3:57 PM, Anonymous brad said...

Joe, have you lost it? Is it time for an intervention? I knew you were the only phd in the family, but the only hick too? I'm a litte scared to ask, but did Maria or LeeAnne take the picture?

 
At 4:04 PM, Anonymous brad said...

Okay, the article is pretty reasonable, even though it overlooks the facts that have been highlighted by movies like "Runaway Jury." The fact is, manufacturers award retailers for gross sales is some of the worst gun-violence parts of the country. And these are self-protections weapons. Frequently they're poorly disguised sales to citizens who choose to sell to criminals. That's why I agree that their should be yearly quantity restrictions for single citizen purchases of anything shy of a collector's gun. You can keep your guns, just not your arsenals. I respect the tradition and mindset behind the minutemen. But Minutemen had a musket not a weapons depot.
Either way the picture has got to go...

 
At 4:41 PM, Anonymous Joe Verica said...

Hi Brad

I have not seen "Runaway Jury", but I will check it out. Also, I was not aware that manufacturers award retailers for gross sales is some of the worst gun-violence parts of the country. I will look into that. IF it is true, then there obviously needs to be more regulations in place to be sure that guns don't end up in the hands of criminals.

Also, if citizens are legally buying guns then turning around an illegally selling them to criminals, then those citizens should be punished, not the manufacturers. Perhaps one way to handle gun sales by citizens is to require them to sell their guns through licensed brokers.

I guess that still doesn't address illegal gun running, but that is really a different topic. Not a liability issue for law-abiding manufacturers.

 
At 10:32 PM, Anonymous brad said...

I agree that gun running citizens are also at fault, but I believe guns fall into a special category like pharmaceuticals. These products have the capacity to harm in the wrong hands and require greater regulation. That's why there are all sorts of studies on at-risk patients. Similarly, there should be studies on at-risk gun owners and background checks, purchase limits and increased licensing. After all, guns like drugs can serve good as well as evil depending on how there employed.

 
At 10:50 PM, Anonymous Joe Verica said...

I agree I have no problem with regulations, back-ground checks, etc. There are some people who just shouldn't have guns!

My point in writing the essay was to make the point that one shouldn't sue manufacturers for the misuse of firearms. Its the misuser who should be punished.

The bill of rights guarentees us the right to own guns, but if someone commits a felony, they forfeit that right. Another point to mention is that one has rights in so far as the do not infringe on the rights of others. If someone demonstrates themselves to be incapable of safely bearing arms, they should have that right revoked.

 
At 11:51 PM, Anonymous Christopher Trottier said...

Yah! Gun porn! Gotta love it.

 
At 7:12 PM, Anonymous Roy said...

Couldn't agree more! The madness does not stop at suing the manufacturers but also the stores selling the guns. If you had the misfortune at seeing Bowling for Columbine, then you see that M. Moore is in the sue the manufacturers camp which says all you need to know.

 
At 9:29 PM, Anonymous Mister B said...

Guns, schmuns, what I really want to know is how you customized your blogger banner to include the Duke's photo.

Can you share the code, man?

 
At 1:38 AM, Anonymous Al said...

I want to know why Brad wants us to be so much more poorly armed than the "authorities." The Brits are looking to take away butcher knives now. I discovered the other day, from my own experience and practice at a demo at a Rendezvous, that the Atlatl was a much more formidable weapon than early muskets. Is that next?

How about compound bows and crossbows?

Larry King talks, in his autobiograph, about his neighbors chasing other neighbors through the streets with bricks.

We can't spend our whole lives in padded cells.

As Jason Lewis likes to say, there's nothing more scary than a Law & Order liberal.

 
At 11:53 AM, Anonymous brad said...

Al,
I'm not saying that citizens need to be poorly armed. But when the second ammendment was written, colonists were unwelcomed visitors on a continent where major european powers were playing war, local natives fought to regain their lands and wild animals wandered off with your kids when you weren't looking. It made a lot of sense for everybody to have a couple of guns for practicallity.
These days guns won't really protect commons citizens from terrorists, most people don't really need to worry about home invasions, and the most dangerous animal in my backyard is the rat that chewed (halfway) through my air conditioner wires.
So if you want a gun, that's great. I was a boy scout and shot clay, beer cans and even a few small hapless woodland creatures. I get the gun thing. I just don't want my drunk neighbor wandering around the condo complex with his right to carry concealed. And I don't believe that the majority of guns sold in bad neighborhoods go into the guns closets or dress drawers of law abiding citizens. I think selling guns in those neighborhoods is like throwing gasoline on a fire.
I work in the pharmaceutical industry. We have stringent standards to govern who gets our drugs and how they may use them. Given my early argument regarding this topic, I don't think it's unreasonable to make guns a little harder to come by than bricks. So don't start stockpiling bricks in fear that law and order liberals will take away your write to own them too.
I take offense at your attempt to play off Bush's use of liberal as a derogatory term. Did you now that over 60% of registered democrats graduated college, while less than 40% of register republicans walk down that aisle? So maybe the logic we use to curtail frivolous guns sales while leaving bricks on the open market is lost on an anachornistic group of cowboy-wannabees who pick their president for swagger and one- liners rather than his track record of dedication and education. But hey, that's just a thought.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home