Guns in America

My good friend, Russ, has asked:

Do you agree or disagree that American firearm manufacturers who sell a legal
product that is not defective should be sued if a criminal uses their products
in a crime?

Russ comments:

No one supports fanciful litigation... It's hard to say if my aversion to this
is simply ingrained cultural tolerance -- gun companies shouldn't be expected to
account for how people use their products... Is it a weapon of death or
marksmanship? Do liability arguments draw inquisitions of Swords? Baseball bats?
Does this boil down to what is in *spirit of gun use*. I wouldn't mind seeing a
legislative or social movement compelling the gun industry to register their
customers, let alone strengthening municipal tracking of firearms...I'm not sure
how much of the federal mechanisms still exists since Bush/Ashcroft decided such
laws requiring local records compromise individual rights to privacy.

Well, Russ, I'm no expert on this issue (or, err, any issues, really)-- but I'm happy to speak to it anyway! Seems to me that litigation as you described it is definitely not the answer, here, for the very reason you cited-- it would be entirely unfair to hold the lead-pipe, rope, candlestick, or the revolver industries accountable for what Professor Plum did with their products to one or thousands of people across the country. It's just not fair. At the same time, America clearly needs to take a good hard, honest look at our problem with gun violence and take some basic measures to prevent it. I believe there are countless under explored opportunities to create harmony and reduce criminal gun violence in our communities-- from teaching peace studies and values in our classrooms, to waging some love on poverty, and most especially by changing the way we deal with prisoners and people that we already know have a high likelihood of repeatedly committing these kinds of crimes. My sense is that the real solution lies in adjusting our values and liberalizing our efforts at caring, and that's always a harder fix in the practical sense, but doable nonetheless.

However, if you want to know the truth, I 'm not sure I hold with most people on the Left who think the Second Amendment should not be interpreted as the right to own powerful automatic weapons, or that people who want to own these weapons should have to get a license or submit to a background check before purchasing these products. There's many a good argument for a well-armed citizenry. It makes the idea of invading our country really, really unpalatable, for example. It means that if our own government decides to go martial law on us for reasons that clearly defy liberal principles, or in the highly unlikely but not impossible event that our country gets taken over by a fascist regime, then we as a people have some resources to challenge the bad guys. Can you imagine having to file for a license or a background check with the very government you are at war with? Of course, God forbid that any kind of conflict like that may happen in this country, ever-- but if He doesn't, (and history is replete with examples like the ones I'm talking about where He didn't), then give me a rifle that shoots as many bullets as possible at the enemy, please. (Of course, there are many problems with this line of thinking. For example, can the general public then also own tanks? Missiles? Battleships? That's a discussion I'm willing to have, if anyone wants to go there . . . hint, hint, I have a comments section beneath this, and every, post).

I think the bottom line is, this nation's citizenry is already very well armed. There are more gun shops in this country than there are gas stations, I've heard. As I've already mentioned, I see the real problems as centered around social and value-based issues-- not with the guns themselves.