Don't Like It? Sue It!

Another politically incorrect group of people is in the cross hairs of the legal establishment.

That would be the poor souls who dare to manufacture firearms.

I know that guns are not the most popular products on the market these days. There are plenty of people out there who think that every gun - I mean every gun - is a "senseless instrument of death that should be banned." (That's a quote from a liberal friend of mine.)

Sure, it's true that plenty of people hate guns. That's OK. They are entitled to their opinions. It's a perfectly legitimate position to argue.

But what's unsettling to me is when the legal system is used to push the argument beyond the limits of reason.

If the legislature wants to ban guns, fine. Ban guns. But people who don't like guns know that will never happen. So the next best thing is to sue gun manufacturers out of existence.

That's what's happening now.

There are several cities - Atlanta, New Orleans, Chicago, Miami-Dade County and Bridgeport, Conn. - poised to sue gun manufacturers. The basic premise here is that gun makers negligently design firearms with inadequate safety devices and warnings.

On the face of it, the argument is absurd.

The lawyers in these cases basically are saying that gun manufacturers are liable for damages because they failed to tell us guns are dangerous.

I have a simple question. Who in America doesn't already know that guns are dangerous?

Anybody bought a gun lately?

There are warnings everywhere. They come with a booklet on gun safety.

In the litigious society of today, who in their right mind would market and sell a firearm without plastering it with warning labels and safety advice? Nobody.

But, of course, that's not good enough.

There are victims of gunfire in America today, so that means somebody must be held accountable. Of course, the person who pulled the trigger is a bad choice. Besides, that person doesn't have any money.

So why not go after the company that manufactures the gun? They've got the money.

Another tactic used against gun manufacturers is the negligent distribution argument.

This argument worked just this past Thursday when a federal grand jury found gun makers responsible in three shootings for letting guns fall into the hands of criminals.

The argument is that the gun makers oversupply gun-friendly markets, mainly in the South, aware that the excess guns flow into criminal hands via illegal markets in other states with more strict gun laws.

That is an enormous stretch of logic, but it worked. The jury bought it. Think about it. Now we are holding the manufacturers of lawful, legitimately sold products liable for the actions of criminals over whom they have absolutely no control.

Talk about your slippery slope. What's to keep this logic from being applied to all manner of products? Knives, ball bats, cars?

The only damages awarded were $500,000 to a survivor of a shooting. But it opens the door. One of the plaintiffs hailed the verdict as opening "a new phase of litigation against the firearms industry."

Of course all this is an outgrowth of the wildly successful litigation against the tobacco industry. Attorneys for several states were able to broker a $200 billion settlement from tobacco companies. (The attorneys got $800 million.) The premise was that tobacco companies must be held accountable for the costs of health care for those who suffer smoking-related illnesses.

And the tobacco company liability doesn't end there.

Just the other day, a woman from San Francisco won a $51.5 million jury verdict from Phillip Morris Co. At age 52 she suffered from inoperable lung cancer. She convinced the jury that the cigarette manufacturer concealed the risks and addictiveness of smoking.

She told the jury she just didn't realize cigarettes were bad for her. The jury bought it.

And that is what will happen next with the gun industry. A group of attorneys will convince a jury that gun manufacturers are bad people. Then let the settlements begin.

Funny thing is, now would seem like the least likely time in our nation's history to go after gun makers. Crime is down, right? No matter. We must forge ahead and sue the politically incorrect into oblivion.

Here are a few firearm facts to consider:

¥ The annual number of fatal firearm accidents is at an all-time low, down 62 percent since the all-time high in 1930, down 26 percent during the last decade and down 10 percent in the last year alone.

¥ The fatal firearm accident rate has decreased throughout the 20th century and is at an all-time low, having declined 82 percent since the all-time high in 1903, 29 percent during the last decade and 17 percent in the last year.

¥ Fatal firearm accidents among children are at an all-time low, down 67 percent since 1975.

¥ In 1995 fatal firearm accidents fell to an all-time low, 1,225, a 10 percent decrease from 1994; a 26 percent decrease from 1985. Since 1930, fatal firearm accidents have decreased 62 percent, while the U.S. population doubled and the number of firearms quadrupled. Other fatal accidents: motor vehicles (43,363), falls (13,986), poisoning (9,072), drowning (3,790), fire (3,761), suffocation on ingested object (3,185) and medical mistakes (2,712).

One could legitimately argue that the reduced number of accidental firearm deaths can be directly related to firearms education. People in today's America are more aware than ever of the dangers of firearms.

But why let facts get in the way of a good lawsuit?

Guns are politically incorrect, just like tobacco. So we will likely sit idly by and watch as the settlements against the gun manufacturers are handed down, just as we did when the tobacco companies were taking the hit.

Maybe you don't smoke. Maybe you don't own a gun. Maybe you don't care.

But don't you get the feeling that sooner or later the political correctness police and their attorneys will come after something you do own or enjoy?