Friday, April 23, 2004

 
Will try to resume this er, "journaling" after about a month of nothing. The March 16 Blog didn't get around to Mayor Bloomberg's deranged or dishonest defense of lawsuits against gun manufacturers. His editorial was published in the Minneapolis RedStarTribune and doubtless elsewhere, and is, one assumes easily Googled. The dirtbag didn't have the integrity to demand the abolition of all gun manufacture, but instead argued against immunizing manufactures against lawsuits seeking damages for the criminal use of firearms. He asserted that gun makers had nothing to fear if they simply avoided "negligence" in deciding to whom to sell their wares. If there is a good posting for the layman somewhere outlining the differences between this "negligence" and that of other corporations or individuals, I've yet to read it. Armchair spec suggests that automobile makers are not commonly held liable for the use of their products in say, making rapid egress from the site of unauthorized withdrawals from financial institutions. Bloomberg is probably correct that gun manufacturers have some knowledge as to which intermediaries are more likely than others to handle guns which end up being used for criminal purposes. It's a reasonable assumption, however, that no matter how careful manufacturers are in choosing their customers, that, like the hypothetical "bomber" or "missle" of ye olde strategic thinking, the "gun will always get through" to criminals. (The prospect of lawsuits that would probably be generated by the refusal to sell to intermediaries that are likely to sell to the er, disadvantaged, while amusing, is surely real.) And plaintiff's attorneys' would (and truthfully)always argue that manufacturers *could* have done more to prevent sales. I'm no more an attorney than a mathematician, but it seems that absent some immunization of manufacturers, they will be not much more likely to ultimately(the tobacco lawsuits took years) escape being held *strictly liable* for criminal use of their products than that a prime number ending in the digit "2" will be found.
It also seems improbable that plaintiffs' attorneys will be inclined to cut some deal with gun manufacturers similar to whatever it was that allowed tobacco companies to escape bankruptcy. And the size of the civilian firearms industry is much smaller than that of tobacco products. Mayor Assmunch might as well have given assurances that Baskin Robbins has nothing to fear in offering asbestos toppings as long as it wasn't *negligent.*
Btw., I don't know the nuances of the social promotion debate in NYC, but have long regarded politicians' promises to end social promotion as something of a vote-seeking scam. Now, about *that* I could be wrong.
Maybe the above crap will break the writers' block, and can get around to the musings of Johnny "Comelately" Derbyshire's recent posts..