PUBLIC FORUM : SUIT TARGETING GUN VIOLENCE TRIGGERS WIDE RANGE OF VIEWPOINTS.

The justice of suing firearms manufacturers for gun injuries aside (which is the same justice as suing the Department of Water and Power for swimming pool drownings), the cities filing these suits are forging a two-edged sword which is very likely to impale them. The theory here is not that the suits are just, but that the firearms companies cannot respond to so many cities filing suits at the same time, and will have to pay big bucks to settle.

There appears to be nothing that would prevent any special interest group from filing a large number of lawsuits against a city and its elected and nonelected officials, to bring the work of the city to a halt. The lawsuits would not have to be in any way related to the cause the plaintiffs advocated, and would not have to be based on fact; the mere cost of responding to the suits, motions, and demands for discovery in municipal, superior, and federal courts at the same time would be unsupportable, forcing the city to agree to the plaintiff's demands. Think of the special interest group you most despise, and be afraid.

The courts should be used for seeking justice, not as instruments for extortion; anyone can play that game.

- James McCammon

Glendale

Los Angeles' lawsuit against the gun industry is intended to help stop the devastation to families and communities caused by gun violence, by making the gun industry accountable for the way its products are designed and the manner in which they are sold.

Because of the influence of the gun lobby, handguns are exempt from federal product safety laws governing consumer products. And, up to now, in their marketing and distribution practices, gun manufacturers have been able to ignore the easy access criminals have to handguns.

Just as requiring air bags does not constitute prohibiting or limiting the sale of automobiles, requiring such safety measures as personalized guns, that can only be used by their lawful purchasers or an indicator to let a gun user know when a bullet is in a gun's chamber, is not taking citizens' guns away. Rather, it's about making the guns that citizens lawfully purchase and possess safer and less of a risk, when inadvertently handled by children.

Personalized guns would also mean that criminals could no longer easily obtain guns.

Existing design technology and distribution practices, such as prohibiting sales to gun shows or to dealers who don't sell out of a storefront would make guns safer and harder for criminals to obtain. Yet, the gun industry systemically refused to implement these measures. While parents remain responsible for how their guns are kept in the home and criminals are accountable for their illegal conduct, the gun industry also bears responsibility for its disregard of what occurs after its products leave the factory.

For too long, the gun industry has been exempt from the basic principles of safety and responsible sales practices that we expect from every other product sold in this country. The goal of the city's lawsuit is to end this exemption once and for all.

- James K. Hahn

City attorney

Los Angeles 

Since when does government set production quotas for a legally licensed and privately owned business? Who is to say what the required demand is? I was under the impression that this was a capitalistic country, not a communist regime.

All firearms have safety devices, but most gun enthusiasts want bare bones and the manufacturer supplies what is in demand. As with anything else in this world, there is no substitute for brains and common sense. Applying the county supervisor's logic, an automobile manufacturer would be liable if I succumbed to carbon monoxide poisoning from running my engine in the garage. Why? Because the technology exists to make the engine stop before the carbon monoxide levels became toxic.

Recent events have shown gun violence seems to also be a chronic problem for our law enforcement officers, i.e., shooting a sleeping person in their car 23 times, for brandishing screw drivers. But in these instances we hold harmless the gun manufacturer and investigate the officers and people involved. The gun is no longer the object of blame as the focus is on department policy and negligence of the officers involved, which is the rational approach to any unfortunate incident.

If the firearms industry is to be culpable for gun-related violence, the alcohol industry must be liable for alcohol-related deaths (one of which occurs every 15 minutes) spousal abuse, etc. After all, its advertisements associate drinking with good times. For this industry, a warning label on the bottle or can suffices. Why, then, should the firearms industry be judged by different standards.

- Eric E. Dresser

Burbank

The gun nuts have two conflicting arguments to support their stand. First of all, they say that criminals can get guns no matter what the laws are. And secondly, they say a free country needs to have guns to protect itself from possible abuses from the government (i.e. if the government turns bad). Couldn't a ``revolutionary'' get guns as easily as a criminal? Surely the laws against possession would be just as strict.

Perhaps, however, they are right and the Second Amendment does protect unmitigated gun ownership. The answer is simple: We repeal the Second Amendment.

- Craig Lennon Kysar

Sherman Oaks

I have a question for the anti-gun Democrat politicians of the Los Angeles City Council, City Attorney James Hahn and the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors who are suing the gun manufacturers to put them out of business.

If they are successful in their suit and firearms manufactures are put out of business, just where do they expect to have the Los Angeles Police Department and the military purchase their weapons? Or will the police and military not need weapons in their utopia La La Land?

- Bob Rosenberg

Woodland Hills

Cities and counties do not have a legitimate case against gun manufacturers. They produce a legal and useful product with adequate and reasonable safety features, otherwise no one would buy them. It is a highly regulated and competitive business. The lawsuits are obviously driven by greed and/or political agenda. Common sense dictates misuse is the fault of the end user of the product and not the methods of marketing, manufacturing or distribution. I am not aware of any untruth or deceit by the manufacturers or retailers.

It is simply a matter of supply and demand. Market forces will control the number of firearms produced. Any government mandate limiting gun-making is probably unconstitutional toward the gun manufacturers as it would constrain their right to earn an honest living. Also limiting production could very well infringe on a potential buyer's ability to purchase a firearm - thus a violation of the Second Amendment. Let's not forget these gun manufacturers rose to the occasion during World War II (as well as in other national crises) to really produce arms in defense of the country.

I can only conclude that these lawsuits are misguided and frivolous, and will most likely deservedly backfire on the cities, counties and politicians behind them.

- R. Breiner

La Crescenta

So the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and City Council have jumped on the legal gravy train and sued the gun manufacturers. I recall that after the North Hollywood shootout the police were begging to be armed with assault rifles in order to cope with heavily-armed criminals. Now, apparently, the word ``criminal'' applies to ordinary, law-abiding citizens who wish to own or purchase a firearm.

I would suggest to the gun manufacturers that they never sever whatever contracts they have with law enforcement agencies. Is it not hypocritical for law enforcement to be party to a lawsuit against a manufacturer who supplies them with weapons.

- Tim Duncan 

Burbank

CAPTION(S):

Photo

PHOTO A cameraman films a table of guns in Los Angeles during a press conference announcing a lawsuit against gun makers.

Nick Ut/Associated Press