Friday, April 08, 2005

Tort reform

It's been said before, but I'll say it again: Why should the manufacturer of a legal product be held responsible for the illegal use of the product? Why do people think it is reasonable to sue a gun manufacturer because someone used that product to kill someone, illegally?

These people think so: Gun Opponents Speak Out Against Tort Reform Bill.

Would they argue that GM is responsible for the injuries caused by a drunk driver?

A common response to my question is that cars have a legitimate legal harmless use and that guns don't. Of course, many people, including the majority of our lawmakers, and, most importantly, the crafters of the 2nd ammendment to the US Constition, differ with that opinion.

I don't think we need to pass more laws about guns, but just enforce the laws that are already on the books. If a gunowner leaves a loaded gun where a minor can get it and, accidently or purposefully, hurt someone with it, prosecute the gunowner. Those killers at Columbine didn't have those guns legally.

Passing a law to take my guns away won't prevent any crimes.