OUR VIEW: The next crusade
~~~~~~~~~
Whether target is tobacco or guns,
~~~~~~~~~
For an update on our political culture's decline, pay
attention to some discussions that took place at the U.S.
Conference of Mayors' annual meeting.
New Orleans Mayor Marc Morial proposed that anti-gun forces
take gun makers to court much in the same way state
attorneys general are taking tobacco companies to court. "It
would be a product liability issue, because some of the guns
that are being sold are unreasonably dangerous," Morial told
The Associated Press.
Other mayors, such as Chicago's Richard Daley and
Philadelphia's Ed Rendell, thought that was a nifty idea,
with Rendell claiming the money is justified to help his
city pay to treat victims of gun violence.
It's one thing to sue firearms manufacturers if they are
selling weapons that explode in a user's hands or in some
other way cause unintended harm when used correctly. But
these mayors now want to use the legal system to intimidate
companies that make firearms that function exactly as
designed.
This approach, whether used against guns or tobacco - are
unhealthy foods next? - distorts the law, defies common
sense and undermines constitutional freedoms. Tort law is
not meant to punish manufacturers of legal products that
perform as promised.
This seems to matter little to those who are far more
interested in pursuing their agenda - anti-gun, anti-
tobacco, etc. - than in following the spirit of the law.
Of course, government doesn't limit its assault on the right
to arms to litigation. Propaganda helps. The U.S. Department
of Justice has just released data regarding the effective-
ness of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, the
federal law mandating background checks and waiting periods
for handgun purchases.
Last year, you may recall, the U.S. Supreme Court voided the
portion of the law that requires local law enforcement to
conduct background checks. The court held that Brady's
requirement that local sheriffs and police handle background
checks before allowing someone to purchase a gun is a
violation of states' rights. Many states, Colorado included,
nonetheless have proceeded on their own with background-
check programs.
Of the 2,574,000 applications for gun purchases last year,
69,000 - 2.7 percent - were blocked because of the law. Of
those gun sales denied, around 60 percent were because the
applicant had a felony conviction or was under indictment
for a felony.
One network news report on those statistics featured a
segment that suggested the Brady law has much to do with the
nation's declining violent crime rate. The implied
conclusion: If a little gun control has dramatically reduced
violent crime, imagine what a lot of it could do. But this
conclusion doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Only a portion of the felons stopped by Brady have been
convicted of violent crimes; meanwhile, most criminals never
attempt to obtain their weapons legally to begin with. They
steal them or buy guns that were previously stolen.
Arguably, felons who attempt to buy guns legally may well
have meant to use them legally.
Too often missing from the debate is the fact that guns are
used 10 times as often to protect lives as they are to take
them. As always, it's worth remembering that The District of
Columbia, one of the more violent cities in the world, also
has one of the strictest gun-control laws in the nation.
Americans would do well to consider such facts before they
surrender more of their rights to the government
authorities.
Back to Alpha Aerie's "Politics" Newsletter
Home |
Politics |
M-F Differences Newsletter |
Info Tidbits |
Feedback |
Feedback Index
victims are liberty, responsibility