Who Are We Protecting?

There has been much talk about what can be done about
the proliferation of gun violence in this country.  But so
far all it has been is talk, everyone has an idea of what
the problem is and what the solution should be; is it
mental health, background checks, assault style weapons,
large capacity clips, too many guns?  Is it one thing, or a
combination of things?  Perhaps it is all of the above.  In
the mean time the killing continues.

In 2017, there were 39,773 gun deaths in the United
States, that is 12 gun deaths per 100,000 population.  By
contrast, there were 37,133 deaths from automobile
accidents in 2017.  You are much safer taking your
chances with an eighteen wheeler on the intestate at
80mph, than you are going to the local mall or movie
theatre.

Everyone is looking at the obvious solutions, let's look
at it from another angle.  When deaths from smoking
were on the rise in the 1950's and 60's, scientist began
to equate many cancers with smoking cigarettes.  That's
when litigation began against the tobacco companies,
however it wasn't until the 1980's when there was a huge
wave of lawsuits.  The premise being:
             
          1) Tobacco companies failed to act with reasonable
               care in making and marketing cigarettes.
          2) Tobacco companies made and marketed a
               product that was unfit to use.

It wasn't until the 1990's that there was limited success
with lawsuits against the big three tobacco companies.
And finally, in 1998 the tobacco companies gave in,
and agreed to pay annual recompense to states, of $206 billion
over twenty-five years for  health care costs stemming from
smoking, and to pay for advertising to discourage smoking.
Too bad the states have used those monies for everything but.

Sensing the same murmurings, the NRA and the gun manufacturers
leapt into action and what resulted was The Protection of Lawful
Commerce in Arms Act, passed on October 26, 2005.  It is a United
States law which protects firearm manufacturers and dealers from
being held liable when crimes have been committed with their
products.  In the years before this legislation, the United States had
successfully sued manufacturers and dealers on the grounds that they
should have foreseen that their products would be diverted to criminal
use.

After the shootings in 2012 in Aurora, Colorado and Sandy Hook
Connecticut, there have been efforts to repeal the Lawful Commerce
in Arms Act, to make it possible for the victims of theses shootings
to sue firearms manufacturers and dealers on a broader array of
grounds.  Nothing has come of the efforts, due mostly by opposition
from the NRA.

According to the Center for American Progress, the protection of the
Lawful Commerce of Arms Act prevents; "victims of gun violence
from pursuing well-established legal claims against irresponsible
gun manufacturers and sellers - without presenting an alternative
means for the victims to be compensated".

The Second Amendment is not sacrosanct, there are exceptions to it,
and there have been for years.  In 1934, responding to multiple gangland
killings, Congress passed the National Firearms Act, it banned the
manufacturing, sale and possession of 'machine guns', fully automatic
guns that could fire multiple rounds, it was reaffirmed by Congress
in 1998.

However, in response to stricter gun laws in Washington DC, and Chicago
the Supreme Court took up the case of  The District of Columbia v Heller.
The ruling significantly reduced the power of cities and states to legislate
effective gun control. It did however, say that there are limits to gun
ownership; felons may not own a gun, those diagnosed with a mental illness
cannot own a gun, guns may be prohibited in schools and government
buildings, and military weapons, such as the M 16, may be banned.

But I ask you, what is the difference between a machine gun and an assault-
style rifle with a 100-round clip and a bump stock?  Yet those things are legal and
readily available for purchase on the internet or at a gun dealer near you.
Can the manufacturer and seller really defend the sale of these products?
Based on what...hunting?  That would have to be one really big buck, or
a hunter who is a really bad shot!  These products are used to inflict the
greatest amount of harm in the shortest amount of time.  And the manufacturer
and dealer knows that.  And that knowledge is tantamount to making and
marketing a product that is unfit to use.

Perhaps it is time to hold the firearms industry liable for the damage they have
inflicted on America, it may nor put them out of business, but it will slow
them down some.  

I'm just sayin'.