Okay; let’s try this again.
The NRA is saying that background checks won’t work because criminals will get the guns somehow anyway. They still insist we should arm every school in the nation.
I suppose an extension of this idea would be to require all movie theaters to have armed guards. How about churches, daycare centers, and mega-super-grocery stores?
How far does this idea extend, and who pays for all of this arming-up?
We know who profits if this proposal is adopted. It’s a win-win for the gun industry.
Let’s set aside, for a moment, all of the Second Amendment discussion that accompanies any proposal to limit access to guns; because the NRA and its manufacturing backers are successfully using that hot-button topic to distract us from who really holds control over the guns in this country.
As I wrote before, I think there is a better way to go about reducing gun violence in America: manufacturer liability.
Why is there no push to make manufacturers responsible for ensuring that their products do not wind up in the wrong hands? I see it mentioned here and there by other writers, but the NRA seems to have succeeded in deflecting everyone’s attention to the unwinnable Second Amendment debate.
They know well how to divide and conquer.
Weapons manufacturers have no skin in the game. They profit no matter who gets hurt. Sometimes even more so when a mass shooting like Connecticut sets off a weapons buying frenzy.
With the threat of liability restored among gun-makers, I guarantee that they and the NRA will come up with some cunning new ways to limit the industry’s exposure to risk, which will, collaterally, serve to reduce gun violence. I don’t know how they’ll do it. I just have every confidence that they will.
Why is the American public staked-out to assume all of the risk associated with a manufacturer’s extremely profitable product?
Senators Leahy and Sanders; Congressman Welch: how about it?