Letter: Columnist wrong on gun liability
In a recent edition of the Appeal-Democrat, Tina Dupuy presented a curious column. She states that gun manufacturers and dealers should be held liable whenever their products or sales items are used to kill or maim someone. Evidently, she doesn't wish to apply this concept to any products, other than guns.
She found most deplorable the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005. This act shields the gun manufacturers and gun shops from liability and responsibility due to the actions of a person that purchased a firearm and/or ammunition. Dupuy wants the manufacturer and the dealer to be financially responsible for whatever the buyer does with his firearm, now no longer under the control of the maker or the dealer.
What about cyberbullying? It's very popular these days. A person commits suicide due to bullying-by-computer.
According to Dupuy, the computer store, the manufacturer and all electronic systems suppliers that make it all possible must also be held responsible, if she is to be consistent with her frustration with the Protection in Arms Act, 2005.
Why isn't there a demand for a waiting period to buy a computer? Shouldn't there be a background check for any bullying tendencies of a computer purchaser? Why not limits on gigabyte capacity and processing speed, etc.? Because reasonable folks hold the perpetrator responsible, as it should be.
California has more than 20,000 gun control laws now. If these laws controlled, or reduced "gun violence" (which is, by the way, much lower than "auto violence") then let's just pass a law against killing people, illicit drug use, burglary, etc. And throw one in about drinking/driving.
Problem solved. I thrill to think of the Utopia we would have then.
Larry Green
Yuba City
