I’m a bit confused by this piece in the LA Times.
Written by UC Berkeley Professor of Law, Stephen D. Sugarman, and Columbia University Professor of Law and Public Health, Jeffery Fagan, they propose a twist to blaming all firearms related deaths on firearms manufacturers.
This year, about 12,000 Americans will be shot to death. It’s a staggering figure, and even though lawmakers have continued to pass gun-control laws to try to bring the number down, they have not significantly reduced the murder rate. Indeed, for the last decade, guns have steadily remained the cause of about two-thirds of all homicides.
Gun manufacturers insist that these deaths are not their fault, preferring to pin the blame on criminals and irresponsible dealers. They have fiercely resisted even minimal restrictions on sales and have simultaneously washed their hands of responsibility for this “collateral damage.”
Blah, blah, blah, whine about the Heller ruling and the passage of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, etc., etc.
We propose a new way to prod gun makers to reduce gun deaths, one that would be unlikely to put them out of business or to prevent law-abiding citizens from obtaining guns. By using a strategy known as “performance-based regulation,” we would deputize private actors — the gun makers — to deal with the negative effects of their products in ways that promote the public good.
In other words, rather than telling gun makers what to do, performance-based regulation would tell them what outcome they must achieve: Reduce deaths by guns. Companies that achieve the target outcomes might receive large financial bonuses; companies that don’t would face severe financial penalties. Put simply, gun makers — whose products kill even when used as directed — would have to take responsibility for curbing the consequent public health toll.
First of all, notice the phrase “unlikely to put them out of business”. This plan first requires firearms manufacturers to admit that they are the problem, which will open them up to lawsuits of the type shut down by the PLCA.
Secondly, as Dean Esmay points out here, these two university professors cannot even take it upon themselves to fleah out their apparently brilliant ideas and come up with a realistic answer as to what exactly the manufacturers could do the lower the number of firearms related deaths.
This is because neither of these two half-wits wants to admit that it is a single socio-economic class that is responsible for a very high percentage of firearms related deaths, and that locking them away for long periods of time and executing the most violent of them would permanently stop them from perpetuating their criminal “lifestyle decisions” which usually involve violent crime.
And lastly, do you like the “even when used as directed” line? I know I did.
That line proves that these two, just like the VPC and the Brady’s, don’t care that it might be a criminal that is killed so that multiple other lives might be saved, they only care about the statistic.
Btw, I know they’d never let Remington execute anyone. They fight against the government executing anyone. Fagan is against the death penalty altogether, and even life in prison in some cases.