Lawsuits against Gun Manufacturers

#5 in a series of information leaflets from The Stentorian, www.stentorian.com
(C) 1999, William A. Levinson. Permission is granted to print, copy, and distribute hard (non-electronic) copies of this page freely and without royalties of any kind, provided that it is not altered in any manner. The page is formatted so it will fit on a single 8.5 by 11 inch sheet. It may be photocopied, folded in thirds, taped to form a letter-sized piece, and mailed to anyone whom you think it would interest- and they are encouraged to similarly copy and distribute it.

Why the comparison of guns to tobacco is pure, unmitigated garbage

Firearms
Alcohol
Tobacco
When used in a responsible manner for their intended purpose, firearms have close to zero chance of injuring or killing their users or other persons. When used in a responsible manner (not to excess, and not before driving) for its intended purpose, alcohol does not cause health problems or violence. Some doctors even think it reduces the change of heart disease. When used in a responsible manner (not near flammable materials, in bed, or near people who object to it) for their intended purpose, cigarettes increase their user's chance of getting cancer, heart disease, and other illnesses.

Handgun Control Inc. lawyer Dennis Henigan: Hostile Witness to his Own Side?

Some cities are suing gun manufacturers for not equipping all their guns with safety locks that prevent unauthorized persons from firing them. "At a recent antigun conference in Chicago, Mr. Henigan, who is the top lawyer with Handgun Control Inc., the country's largest gun control organization, waved a version of the [Saf T Lock], extolling how easy it is to operate. Then, punching in what he thought was the correct combination, the lawyer failed to unlock the gun, much to the evident discomfort of the sympathetic audience." He excused his failure with the words, "Even if a klutz like me fumbles on the first try, the benefits of having a lock outweigh the risks." (Barrett, "A Simple Invention Points Up Complexity of Gun-Control Suits," Wall Street Journal, 4/23/99, A1). In other words, Mr. Henigan proved to himself and his audience that these "safety locks" can get their owners killed in life-threatening situations.
Since about a quarter of all cop-killings are committed with the officer's own sidearm, why don't police use these locks? Answer: the problem demonstrated by Mr. Henigan would facilitate a lot more cop-killings by letting the criminal get off the first, and probably the second and third shots, or by letting the criminal reach the officer with a knife or bludgeon.)
Before HCI & Co. accuse me of being "against gun locks," I will say that they should be used when the firearm is not intended for use in an emergency; a lock may, for example, prevent a burglar from getting his hands on an immediately-usable firearm. Locks also are appropriate if you have children who have not been taught (or cannot be trusted) to handle firearms safely and responsibly. Many teenagers are, however, far more responsible with guns than Senator Dianne Feinstein or Carl "Warning Shot" Rowan. (Feinstein mishandled a semiautomatic AK-47 in public by putting her finger inside the trigger guard and possibly by letting the muzzle point at her audience, while Rowan fired a "warning shot" at a trespasser.)
The fact that Handgun Control Inc. and various cities are continuing to pursue these lawsuits after HCI's own lawyer demonstrated the problems with these locks is plain evidence of HCI's and the cities' dishonesty and lack of good faith.