Recent school shootings and a general outrage about gun violence have caused a major backlash against the manufacturers of weapons. About 30,000 Americans die every year of gunshot wounds. Increasingly those killed, and those who kill, are younger and younger.
So far, 29 cities and counties have filed suits against gun manufacturers. In class-action suits very similar to the tobacco litigation of the past few years, the gun industry is being held accountable for the actions of those who use their products.
This past week the gun industry faced its biggest threat. The Clinton administration and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced that they will join in the class-action suit. The gun industry, unlike the much wealthier tobacco industry, cannot afford the kind of huge lawsuit this promises to become. Although the government has not officially joined the lawsuit yet, it hopes to pressure the industry through the threat of government involvement.
What exactly is the lawsuit about?
The cities filing suit against the gun manufacturers are concerned about three main issues: gun safety, distribution and advertising. The theory behind their lawsuit is not to bankrupt the industry, but to increase gun safety and put into use already existent technologies. Trigger locks and "smart guns" that recognize the owner's fingerprints are such technologies that are available now. The gun industry stresses the need for educating gun users on these devices.
Only 1 percent of the nation's gun dealers sell the guns that are used in nearly 50 percent of crimes. Why then are they not able to track who is buying what and affect the distribution of deadly weapons? The gun lobby claims that they do not have the ability to make such conclusions about who the bad buyers are. They note that a high percentage of a given gun retailer's guns could be used in crimes simply because the retailer is located in a high-crime area.
Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina have made one step towards controlling gun distribution. In these states, a new measure has been put into place to prevent people with clean records from buying guns for criminals. The "one gun per month" rule took affect in Virginia in 1993, and the state has seen a significant decrease in both handgun sales and murders attributed to handguns.
The issue of advertising is not a major one, as it was in the tobacco lawsuits. All major gun manufacturers promise not to market their products to criminals.
Who is to blame?
As expected, the National Rifle Association (NRA) - the major defender of bearing arms in the United States - is condemning the lawsuit, and especially the involvement of the government. "The vast majority of Americans know that we should hold violent criminals directly responsible for their crimes," states James Baker, head of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action.
It is an interesting and common sentiment: Who is responsible for gun violence? Is it the responsibility of the gun manufacturers to make their product safer? Or is it the responsibility of the gun owner to assure the product be used in a safe manner? Clearly, the government and the cities are not absolving criminals of any blame. They are, however, suggesting that the gun industry is contributing to the criminal acts by not increasing safety measures.
