I notice the attempts being made once again to sue gun manufacturers for the damages caused by their products in the hands of criminals. I certainly don?t accept the premise of this argument, but let?s assume for a moment that it is valid.
If gun manufacturers get penalized by the governments for the costs of the damages of their products ? having to prosecute the criminal, paying for their jailing, and the extra law enforcement costs ? shouldn?t the gun manufacturers be rewarded for the savings that their products cause in the hands of law-abiding citizens?
In right-to-carry states, the violent crime rates are much less than in states without right-to-carry laws. In states which pass right-to-carry laws, the violent crime rates drop precipitously (if not to say, violently) as in Florida. Florida passed a right-to-carry law in 1987 and by 1992, the homicide rate was down 23 percent while the rest of the nation saw a 9 percent increase. Thus, these same guns are saving the right-to-carry states huge amounts by not having to incur enforcement costs, judicial system costs, and incarceration costs on the crimes that the gun manufacturers? products in the hands of citizens are preventing. In fact, John Lott and David Mustard (“Crime, Deterrence, and Right To Carry Concealed Handguns,” 1996.) state that ?….the estimated annual gain from allowing concealed handguns is at least $6.214 billion.? If gun manufacturers can be sued for the illegal use of their products, thus increasing the cost of their product to consumers, they should also be rewarded for the gains.
In contrast to the US with its opening of gun possession, Dr. Thomas Sowell cites England which has gone though decades of ever-tightening gun control resulting in crime rates that have soared with huge costs to society.
