Here is what the goverment is saying the manufacturies have done:
Distribution. “Manufacturers sell guns and have guns distributed in states with very weak gun laws, knowing that these guns will be transported from weak gun law states to strong gun law states,” city attorney Michael Hess said.
Advertising. The city will also argue gun makers have deceived the public by saying things like homes with guns are safer than homes without firearms. Hess claimed numerous studies prove that to be false.
Manufacturing. The Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, a co-counsel in the lawsuit, argued that the gun industry “has the ability to reduce the number of gun deaths and injuries by changing the design of its products and by marketing them more responsibly, yet it continues to refuse to make such changes.”
I guess I’m most concerned with the second one. I mean – doesn’t a gun in your home make it safer?
IANAL but from what I’ve seen and real attorneys I’ve talked to think the governments case is weak. However, it can be weak and still be effective. Think back to the cases against breast implant manufacturers. There was no scientific evidence that remotely approached the level proof needed in a court trial yet many companies ceased to make them or were driven out of business. These cases are EXPENSIVE and time consuming. Add to that that there is always a chance you might lose no matter how strong you think your case is and all of a sudden you find it’s easier to comply with some regulations you fought tooth-and-nail to avoid a few months earlier. For example, spend $2 million on a years long court case or spend 2 months and $500,000 to include gun locks with every weapon? As a company you may think gun locks are crap and not worth the investment but they do become worth it in a situation like this.
I started a thread awhile back called ‘Legislation via Litigation’ and it got a woefully small response. That surprised me given that this is EXACTLY what it dealt with. Gun control laws can’t be passed for whatever reason so you head to the courts and get them to do what your legislators can’t or won’t. Personally I think the trend is worrisome making an already litigious society even more so.
They’d have to prove that the intent of the gun manufacturers is to sell to people that are not allowed to own guns.
There are statistics that prove either side is correct. You know the saying: There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Guns are extremely safe as they are now manufactured. A person who is properly trained (either formally or informally) will probably not have a safety problem. IMO, The Center to Prevent Handgun Violence wants the gun manufacturers to make guns that are incapable of chambering or firing any kind of ammunition. Only a non-functional firearm is safe enough for them. (Or maybe not. It can still be used as a club!)
I have a problem with that line of thinking. By this token car manufacturers in the 50’s/60’s could have said cars are perfectly safe if everyone is properly trained so we don’t need to install seat belts. I mean, if everyone obeyed every traffic law perfectly and drove responsibly there’d be no accidents. Cars themselves are very safe till you hit something (i.e. they don’t generally blowup for no reason or lose a wheel at random…certainly not often enough to make an issue out of it).
In a perfect world you may be right but this is hardly a perfect world.
Let me elaborate then. A firearm is a very simple mechanical device. Most firearms have safeties on them. The safties work. Granted, there are some older designs that, if a round is chambered, can discharge if dropped. But I think that firearms manufactured today are as safe as they can be and still shoot.
My Beretta has a safety that 1) decocks the hammer; 2) disconnects the trigger; and 3) rotates the firing pin 90° so that it cannot a) be struck by the hammer; nor b) strike the primer of the cartridge.
Other makers, such as Smith & Wesson, have other safties. For example, S&W automatic pistols cannot be fired, even if the safety selector is in the “fire” position and there is a round in the chamber, if the magazine has been removed.
Having provided two specific examples of how handguns are exceptionally safe, what examples can you give that modern firearms are unsafe when handled properly and in good working order?
Since there are about 1MM gun control threads in Great Debates, I’d like to take the opportunity to thank respondants to this thread so far for focusing on the factual and legal issues asked about in the OP. I’d encourage future posters to follow the fine example set so far.
The nature of the way cars are used make for lots of accidents even with skilled and experienced drivers. Gun safety is much simpler. It can be learned in a few hours and the rules are effective even with firarms that have no safety devices. The basic rules are:
Every gun is loaded.
Never allow a gun to point at anything yo do now wish to destry.
Keep your finger out of the trigger guard until on target and ready to fire.
And this brings up an interesting question. Isn’t the ATF charged with regulation of the firearms industry? Here’s their “mission statement” from http://www.atf.treas.gov/about/index.htm
[quote]
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) is a law enforcement organization within the United States Department of Treasury with unique responsibilities dedicated to reducing violent crime, collecting revenue, and protecting the public. ATF enforces the Federal laws and regulations relating to alcohol, tobacco, firearms, explosives and arson by working directly and in cooperation with others to:
[ul]
[li]Suppress and prevent crime and violence through enforcement, regulation, and community outreach.[/li][li]Ensure fair and proper revenue collection.[/li][li]Provide fair and effective industry regulation.[/li][li]Support and assist Federal, State, local, and international law enforcement.[/li][li]Provide innovative training programs in support of criminal and regulatory enforcement functions.[/li][/ul]
(Bolding and italics, mine)
Now, the Federal, and some local, government have said that the firearms industry is basically out-of-control, nearly unregulated, if you will. From this, is it not logical to reason, that at least some of the blame must be shared by the ATF? Should the ATF not be a defendant in these lawsuits also? Regulation of the industry is, after all, their unique responsiblity.
I was making no comment on the safety or lack thereof of guns. Merely taking issue with your reasoning. While your second post cleared up the point your first post suggested training was the way to safety for using guns. Re-reading I see you were saying both the manufactured gun is safe in and of itself so a person with training should have no issues with a firearm.
Besides, as far as I know guns are now manufactured to the equivalent safety level of a car with driver/passenger/rear seat/side airbags with dual restraint seatbelts and active head restraint, 50mph rated bumpers and a titanium rollcage.
Great point about the ATf being responsible. I think they would feel a bit differently were there no such thing as governmental immunity.
I find it alarming that the government is supporting lawsuits against legal products that work the way they are designed. Cars cause far mor deaths, and I would venture that they malfunction a lot more often than guns. Heck, Gore even stated that the internal combustion engine is the worst thing that happened to society. So when can we expect suits on:
tobacco
alcohol
knives
cars
fatty food?
Not to use the slippery slope argument against this suit, but it want.