When it's not right to blame the industry

If you happen to be one of the more liberal readers of Middle Earth Journal, be prepared to dislike me. (I used to be a Republican, as you may recall, and obviously we aren't going to agree on everything.) The New York Times has an editorial this morning criticizing a bill being shepherded through Congress by Senator Doctor Mullah Bill Frist. Now, I'm no fan of Frist's, but the bill in question deserves, in my opinion, a fair examination rather than simply dismissing it because of its sponsors. It deals with providing certain immunities to gun manufacturers from lawsuits brought by victims of gun violence. The Gray Lady launches a rather typical attack.

No Immunity for the Gun Industry

At a time when Congress is grappling with critical measures, including military and energy issues, the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, has seen fit to catapult a special interest bill for the gun lobby to the head of the legislative queue. The bill would grant gun manufacturers, distributors and sellers an unreasonable degree of immunity from civil suits by families or communities harmed by gun violence. It would even require that lawsuits already filed be dismissed.

Although the firearms industry argues that it should not be held liable for the criminal acts of those who buy or steal guns, all too often the dealers, distributors or manufacturers contribute to the problem by failing to safeguard their inventories or police their own sales responsibly. The victims of their negligence deserve the right to sue.

In their opening volley, the Times is pulling a bait and switch here. Even they seem to admit that it's wrong to hold the manufacturer liable for the actions of those who buy or steal the weapons. However, they then go on to lump three different groups of people into one big mess. "Negligent dealers, distributors or manufacturers." Take a good look at the editorial's next paragraph and see if you can spot how this bait and switch is being used with a "tug at the heartstrings" example.

Most Americans would surely applaud the legal settlement made in the Washington-area sniper case. The dealer that "lost" the sniper's assault rifle, and some 200 other guns as well, and the rifle's manufacturer paid $2.5 million to two surviving victims and the families of six victims who died. Yet the pending bill, according to legal experts, is so restrictive that if it had been in effect, this lawsuit would have been barred.

Lovely. "Most Americans" as I'm sure you'll agree, feel a lot of sympathy for the victims of the sniper. "Most Americans" are probably pretty angry at a shady, profit motivated gun dealer who let dangerous firearms escape the system for some cold hard cash. But if they stopped and thought about it, I think that these "Most Americans" would agree that the culprits in this suit are the sniper and the shady dealer. Sadly, the shady dealer didn't have "deep pockets" so the lawyers went after the manufacturer.

What is the responsibility of the firearms manufacturer? They have to produce weapons (for which there is a great demand) which are:

• Functional
• Safe to operate
• In compliance with all applicable legal limits on size, power, clip size, etc.
• Able to be fitted with safety features such as trigger locks.

Once the manufacturer has accomplished all of those tasks, there really isn't much more that can be done. Guns are dangerous, but they are not illegal (for most "ordinary" weapons) and there is a demand for them. When some person down the line gets one of these guns in their hands, they have the ability to injure or kill another human being. No matter how safely and perfectly the gun was designed, a person of only moderate intelligence can figure out how to operate it and injure somebody.

If we still have manufacturers out there who are producing unsafe weapons that tend to blow up in your hand when you are using them, or which can not be fitted with safety guards to keep children, etc. from hurting themselves, then by all means they need to be brought into compliance, by a lawsuit if need be. But if they are producing weapons that meet all of the above criteria, (and from the reports I've read, all the major manufacturers are) then it's time to stop blaming the manufacturers and going after them because that's where the deep pockets are.

Go after the criminals. Go after these dealers and gun show salesmen who are arming people without the proper background checks and documentation. Stop persecuting the manufacturers for creating something which is perfectly legal and in demand. I have a kitchen knife at my house, designed for slicing bread, which has a seven inch blade. If my wife suddenly decides that I've failed to take out the trash once to often and plunges it into my chest, it's a fairly good bet that I'll be dead. Should my family sue the knife manufacturer? No. Knives are legal. Stabbing somebody with one is not.