Guns: Criminal Misuse and Self-Protection

More than 15 studies have shown that citizens use guns in self-defense between 764,000 and 3.6 million times annually.²³ Criminologist Gary Kleck has estimated there are more than 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year.²⁴ A study sponsored by the National Institute of Justice and carried out by the Police Foundation found an even greater number of defensive gun uses - approximately 2.73 million a year.²⁵ Either figure is larger than the number of crimes committed with firearms.

The only survey that ever found fewer than 700,000 defensive gun uses (DGUs) per year is the National Crime Victimization Survey, which estimated that guns were used defensively approximately 80,000 times annually.²⁶ Not surprisingly, supporters of more restrictive firearms laws cite this survey as evidence of the relative infrequency of defensive gun use versus gun crime. The clearest evidence that the NCVS data on defensive gun uses is seriously flawed is that it is radically different from the results of every other survey. Near unanimity is relatively rare in crime studies but, except for the one outlier, it seems to be the case on the issue of DGUs. Among the notable problems with the NCVS are: (1) the respondents were not anonymous, (2) respondents were not directly asked if they had ever used a firearm for self-defense but rather simply whether they had done "anything" for self-protection and (3) most violent crimes reported to the NCVS were committed away from home but relatively few people have concealed carry permits. A respondent admitting defensive use would have been admitting - to a government agency - illegal or legally questionable behavior.

Other studies show that criminals fear armed citizens far more than they fear the police.²⁷ Their fear is reasonable. Approximately 3,000 criminals are lawfully killed each year by armed civilians - more than three times the number killed by the police.²⁸ For example:

• Leonard Carter, 71, shot and killed an intruder who first attacked Carter on his Philadelphia porch, followed him into his house and threatened to kill him with a knife; the young attacker was found to be under the influence of drugs.²⁹

• Karen Walkden, 18, shot and killed her landlord after he grabbed her and said he was going to rape her.³⁰

• Using a shotgun, a 15-year-old Houston boy defended his father from two masked housebreakers; one attacker died, the other fled.³¹

An additional 9,000 to 17,000 criminals are wounded by civilians each year.³² For instance:

• A Massachusetts tanning salon owner who had been maced by two would-be robbers sent them fleeing when he opened fire with his .38 caliber pistol; one man was wounded and was later arrested when he sought treatment for his injuries.³³

• Concealed carry permit holder Vincent McCarthy shot a police officer's attacker, who was enraged over the fact that his wife was receiving a traffic ticket, in the back of the knee.³⁴

Far more often, when guns are used to thwart a crime, no shots are fired. In most cases, merely showing the firearm prevents the attack or the crime.³⁵ For example:

• Using his .357 caliber revolver, Frank Bergamo of Pueblo, Colo., held a would-be housebreaker until police arrived.³⁶

• When a Louisiana woman injured during an attempted carjacking retrieved her revolver from under the seat, the would-be car thief fled.³⁷

Rather than conceding that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens deter crime, supporters of gun control argue that citizens do not need guns for self-defense. After all, they say, "that's what we have the police for." But the reality is that at any one time, only 75,000 to 80,000 police are on duty to protect about 271 million people - which is why police primarily investigate crimes rather than prevent them. In addition, the courts consistently rule that the police are not obligated to protect individuals, but only to maintain "public order and safety." Therefore, people's best security against crime is their own willingness to defend themselves.³⁸

Research supports the view that an armed response works. For example, women faced with assault are 2.5 times less likely to suffer serious injury if they respond with a firearm rather than trying to defend themselves with less effective weapons or by offering no resistance. According to the Department of Justice, only one-fifth of the victims who defended themselves with firearms suffered injury, compared to almost half of those who defended themselves with other weapons or with none.³⁹ A study of robberies found: ⁴⁰

• Of robberies begun, fewer than 31 percent were completed when the victims defended themselves with a firearm, compared to 35 percent when the victims had a knife and more than 88 percent when the victims offered no resistance.

• During those robberies, persons who defended themselves with firearms suffered injury in 17 percent of the cases, compared to 40 percent of cases in which persons defended themselves with knives, 22 percent in which they used other weapons, 25 percent when they did not resist and 35 percent when they tried to flee.

As Figure II shows, persons defending themselves with guns during an assault were injured 12 percent of the time, compared to nearly 30 percent for those who attempted self-defense with knives, 25 percent for those using other weapons, 27 percent for those offering no resistance and nearly 26 percent for those who fled or resisted nonviolently. Firearms are the safest, most effective way to protect oneself against criminal activity.

Concealed Weapons and Crime

"Concealed carry laws reduce murder by 8.5 percent, rape by 5 percent and severe assault by 7 percent."

 

The overall rate of serious crime in the U.S. is at a 20-year low. The murder rate has fallen more than 30 percent since 1993 (20 percent in the past two years) and is now lower than in the 1970s.⁴¹ One reason for this drop in crime is liberalized concealed carry laws. Since 1987, 22 states have made it easier for private citizens to get concealed carry permits.⁴² A recent study by University of Chicago economist John Lott found that:⁴³

• Concealed carry laws reduce murder by 8.5 percent, rape by 5 percent and severe assault by 7 percent. [See Figure III.]

• Had liberalized concealed carry laws prevailed throughout the country in any given year, there would have been 1,600 fewer murders, 4,200 fewer rapes and 60,000 fewer severe assaults.

But not every city or state has experienced the general decline in crime rates.

• States like Illinois that forbid the concealed carrying of firearms have, on average, double the murder rate and a 20 percent higher rape rate than states with liberal concealed carry laws.

• States that allow concealed carry but also allow local officials to decide whether individuals get concealed carry permits have issued relatively few permits and suffer a 30 percent higher murder rate and a 19 percent higher incidence of rape, on average, than states with more liberal laws.

While murder and other violent crime rates are declining in many cities, they are still on the rise in Philadelphia. Pennsylvania liberalized its concealed carry law in 1989, but Philadelphia demanded and received an exemption.

The results are troubling. ⁴⁴

• Philadelphia has the highest firearms murder rate of the 10 largest U.S. cities.

• Shootings accounted for 80 percent of the more than 400 murders that occurred in Philadelphia in 1997.⁴⁵

• The city estimates that gun violence costs it approximately $50 million annually in additional policing and health care-related expenses

• In 1997, 13.2 million crimes were reported to the police, of which approximately 1.6 million were crimes of violence.⁴⁶ Most violent crimes do not involve guns. As noted above, only 482,954, or just less than 29 percent, of the violent crimes committed in 1996, including 13,391 murders, were committed with firearms.⁴⁷ Though still alarmingly high, crime-related firearms injury or death is a relatively rare event.

  • Of the victims of nonfatal violent crimes involving a gun from 1987 to 1992, only 3 percent suffered gunshot wounds.

  • According to a 1992 survey, only 0.3 percent of injury visits to hospital emergency rooms involved firearm injuries.⁴⁸

  • In 1996, approximately 0.2 percent of violence-related injuries treated in emergency rooms involved firearms - including injuries resulting from being beaten with a firearm.⁴⁹

  What Firearm Violence Costs. Calculating the total cost of crime is difficult, with estimates ranging from as low as $17.6 billion⁵⁰ to as high as $450 billion⁵¹ annually. [See the sidebar: Crime Victims' Rights.] The figures for the cost of violent crime in these studies show just as wide a disparity, from a low estimate of $1.4 billion by Patsy Klaus to a high estimate of $426 billion by Ted Miller, Mark Cohen and Brian Wiersema. The figures vary because different researchers included different factors in their calculations. Klaus's cost figures excluded murder and accounted only for direct costs (lost work time, medical expenses, lost property, etc.), whereas Miller, Cohen and Wiersema included estimates for the numbers of crimes not reported and placed a dollar value on such intangible, hard-to-quantify losses as pain and suffering, emotional trauma and the risk of death from victimization. These intangibles account for more than 77 percent of the cost of crime, according to the authors.⁵² Like the estimates of the costs of all violent crime, those of the costs of firearms-related crime vary greatly, ranging from $253.1 million to $18.7 billion, as shown in Table II.

  Cost estimates like these may be driving the cities' firearms lawsuits.

  Lawyers in Philadelphia pointed out that 80 percent of the medical costs from firearms violence is picked up by taxpayers because the victims rarely have insurance. However, among the general population only about 17 percent are uninsured.⁵³ This may have something to do with the fact that a substantial portion of gunshot victims have criminal records.

  • Between 1985 and 1990, two-thirds of murder victims had prior criminal arrests, averaging four arrests for 11 offenses, and 36 percent had prior firearms-related arrests.⁵⁴

  • A study of victims of nonfatal gunshot wounds in Charlotte, N.C., found that 71 percent had been arrested previously and 64 percent had been convicted of a crime.⁵⁵

  • A 1995 survey of males arrested in 11 cities showed that 21 percent of the adults and 11 percent of the juveniles had been shot at least once.⁵⁶

  • 71 percent of teen-age drive-by shooting victims are "documented" members of street gangs.⁵⁷

  Benefits of Defensive Gun Use. Depending on the source, at the low end of reasonable estimates, the annual number of defensive gun uses (764,000) is somewhat lower than the highest estimate of the number of crimes committed with firearms (915,000), while at the high end the number of defensive gun uses (3.6 million) is far greater than either of the two estimates of firearms-related crimes.⁵⁸

  The most reasonable estimate of defensive gun use was made by Kleck: approximately 2.5 million annually. If Kleck's numbers are even close to correct, then the saving to society from the crimes prevented is about five times greater than the cost to society of firearms violence.⁵⁹ There are several reasons for believing that Kleck's research provides the most accurate numbers for defensive gun uses: (1) it was the first survey specifically designed to estimate the number of defensive gun uses; (2) it asked respondents about their own DGUs and those of all members of the household; (3) it inquired about DGUs with all guns, not just handguns; (4) it asked about a recall period of one and five years; and (6) it included detailed questions about whether the respondents actually confronted an adversary, used their guns in some way and did so in connection with a specific crime.

  According to Klaus, each crime (excluding murder) costs, on the average, $524.⁶⁰ Another study, by Edwin Zedlewski, estimates the average cost of crime at $2,300.⁶¹ These two estimates are based on all crime. A third estimate of $20,360 is based on the cost of firearms crimes alone, drawn from the Miller, Cohen and Wiersema study and a second study by Miller and Cohen on the cost of firearms-related crime injuries.⁶²

  Using these three estimates, and based on the 483,000 firearms crimes reported to the police, Table II shows that the costs of firearms crime range from $253.1 million (Klaus) to $9.8 billion (Miller et al.). If one instead employs the estimate from the victimization survey of 915,000 firearms crimes, the costs range from $479 million (Klaus) to $18.6 billion (Miller et al.).

  Table III shows the range of total benefits from defensive gun use - both immediate benefits (from crimes prevented) and the long-term benefits (from criminals killed during defensive gun use). As the table shows, using the low-end estimate of 764,000 crimes prevented, the total benefits range from $570.2 million (Klaus) to $22.2 billion (Miller et al.); using the Kleck estimate of 2.5 million crimes prevented, the total benefits range from $1.5 billion (Klaus) to $57.5 billion (Miller et al.).

  In Table IV the net benefits of defensive gun use - that is, the costs of gun violence minus the benefits of defensive gun use - are shown, assuming 915,000 firearms crimes (the number most favorable to proponents of gun lawsuits). The first line in each section shows the net benefit if guns are used defensively 764,000 times (also the number most favorable to proponents of gun lawsuits); the second line shows the net benefit, still assuming 915,000 firearm crimes but using the Kleck estimate of 2.5 million defensive gun uses. With either set of assumptions, there is a positive net benefit to defensive gun use, ranging from $90.7 million to $3.5 billion under assumptions most favorable to proponents of gun lawsuits, or from $1 billion to $38.9 billion using the Kleck assumptions.

  Cities are suing to recover the medical costs associated with treating criminals despite the fact that the injuries may represent net savings from defensive gun use.⁶³ Every day an offender spends hospitalized or in bed at home after a firearm injury is a day he is not committing crimes. The savings are likely to be substantial.

  Even those who do not own or carry a gun benefit from widespread gun ownership and shall-issue right-to-carry laws. Armed citizens frequently come to the aid of people under attack. In addition, criminals cannot often know in advance who is armed. And if we imagined a world where neither criminals nor intended victims had firearms, substantial numbers of crimes still would be carried out with other weapons. But only the intended victims would suffer since unarmed persons are less likely than armed persons to attempt to defend themselves against crime. In addition, those people who did attempt to defend themselves without a gun would more likely to be injured than they would have been had they been armed with a gun. (See the earlier section "Guns and Self-Protection" for evidence.)

  The criminal's intended victim receives an immediate and substantial benefit from a successful defensive gun use, even though it rarely ends in the death of the offender. And though it is morbid to consider, society enjoys a long-term benefit when the criminal dies. The average offender is criminally active for 20 years, during which he commits, on average, more than 14 serious crimes per year.⁶⁴ Twenty percent of criminals have been arrested five or more times for violent crimes and 44 percent from two to four times. These numbers do not include any crimes they got away with.⁶⁵

  Other research shows that criminals tend to commit numerous crimes.

  • In Philadelphia, just 20 percent of those arrested for nontraffic offenses committed two-thirds of all violent crimes, three-fourths of all rapes and robberies and virtually all murders. ⁶⁶

  • The same 20 percent had accumulated five criminal arrests by age 18 and had gotten away with dozens of crimes for every one for which they were arrested.⁶⁷

  • In another study, while half the criminal population imprisoned in California, Texas and Michigan committed fewer than 15 crimes per year before imprisonment, 25 percent committed more than 135 crimes annually and 10 percent committed more than 600.⁶⁸

  We can calculate a rough range of the average annual long-term savings from crimes avoided due to deaths from defensive gun uses.⁶⁹ If we assume that the average criminal has his active criminal career cut in half (to 10 years) and that approximately 3,000 criminals⁷⁰ are lawfully killed each year, thus avoiding 14 crimes per year averaging $524 for 10 years, the social benefit is $169.9 million. Using Zedlewski's cost estimate of $2,300, the social benefit is $745.8 million.⁷¹ If, following Miller, Cohen and Wiersema, we add the indirect costs of crime, the average total cost of a violent crime is $20,360, and at 14 crimes per year averted for 10 years the long-term saving from defensive shootings is $6.6 billion per year. [See Table III.]

  The total social benefit from defensive gun uses is equal to the annual savings from non-deadly gun uses plus the annual savings from defensive gun uses in which the criminal is killed. And any number selected is greater than the cost of firearm violence.⁷² For instance, even under a best-case scenario for lawsuit proponents, using the NCVS firearms crimes number (915,000), and the Tarrance Group's defensive gun use statistic (764,000), the net benefit from defensive gun use ( the total benefits less the total costs) ranges from just over $90 million annually to $3.5 billion per year. Using Kleck's more credible estimate for annual defensive gun use, the net benefit ranges from $1 billion to $38.9 billion annually. [See Table IV.] The annual net benefit of civilian gun use in the prevention of crime is even greater if the NCVS overestimates firearms crimes and the Bureau of Justice Statistics figures (483,000) are more accurate.

  This substantial benefit is ignored in the lawsuits. Proponents of stricter gun control routinely ignore or deny the benefits of defensive gun uses due to their unexamined belief that the U.S. would be a safer place if there were fewer guns in private hands. And it is not in the interest of the trial lawyers involved to take note of the benefits of gun ownership, since this would diminish their chances of a substantial jury award or out-of-court settlement. The question is why the mayors are ignoring the myriad benefits that their constituents receive from gun ownership and the harm that would seem to flow from diminishing individuals' responsibility for their actions.

Bad Law: Banning Guns by Lawsuit

"Courts have consistently held that questions concerning firearms' legality and availability are for legislatures to decide."                                                                         "It is a well-established principle in tort law that manufacturers are not responsible for the criminal misuse of their products."                                                                         "Courts have recognized that firearms are no different from many other potentially dangerous products."                                                                         "In 1997 approximately 3,100 children age 14 and under dies in automobile accidents, 1050 drowns, 500 dies in bicycle accidents 700 died in fires, while fewer than 250 died from accidental gunfire."                                                                         "A court dismissed the first case pursuing the public nuisance theory against gun manufacturers."

 

Until the Hamilton decision, except for cases where materials had been shown to be inferior or workmanship shoddy, gun manufacturers had defended themselves successfully against product liability lawsuits. Of approximately 40 lawsuits against gun makers during the past 20 years (most in the last decade) involving cases in which guns functioned properly, only two made it to trial. One was successful, but its effect was later negated by the state legislature.⁷³

Why have lawsuits against gun manufacturers been so unsuccessful in the past? And is anything different about the lawsuits discussed here that might make them more likely to succeed? While each case discussed in this study presents unique arguments by plaintiffs trying either to create new, enforceable manufacturer duties or to extend standard tort law theories in novel ways, they are just as unlikely as past lawsuits to succeed on the merits. The courts are likely to remain disinclined to usurp the legislative function or to destroy existing tort law principles.

Asking the Courts to Legislate. The lawsuits discussed here ask the courts to substitute their judgment for the public's, as expressed through state and national legislatures. In past federal and state gun lawsuits, however, courts have consistently held that questions concerning firearms' legality and availability are for legislative assemblies to decide.⁷⁴

Federal courts have been nearly unanimous in ruling against the notion that the courts should legislate gun policy. For instance:

• In Wasylow v. Glock, Inc., the court said, "It is the province of legislative or authorized administrative bodies, and not the judicial branch, to advance through democratic channels policies that would directly or indirectly either (1) ban some classes of handguns or (2) transform firearm enterprises into insurers against misuse of their products. Frustration at the failure of legislatures to enact laws sufficient to curb handgun injuries is not adequate reason to engage the judicial forum in efforts to implement a broad policy change."⁷⁵

• In Martin v. Harrington & Richardson, Inc., the court stated, "Imposing liability for the sale of handguns, which would in practice drive manufacturers out of business, would produce a handgun ban by judicial fiat in the face of the decision by [the legislature] to allow its citizens to possess handguns."⁷⁶

• In Delahanty v. Hinckley et al., the court ruled that, "[W]hat is really being suggested by plaintiffs, . . . is for this Court, or courts, to indirectly engage in legislating some form of gun control.... [H]owever, . . . such legislation should be left to the federal and state legislatures which are in the best position to hold hearings and enact legislation which can address all of the issues and concerns as well as reflect the will of the citizens."⁷⁷

State courts also have been loath to usurp their legislatures' lawmaking authority. For instance:

• In Lovett v. Sturm, Ruger et al., the Michigan Circuit Court ruled, "Not only would the application of this theory of strict liability be contrary to case law but it would also be forcing the court to trespass on the lawmaking territory of the legislature. The sale, registration, and use of firearms in this country is an area highly controlled by both state and federal firearms statutes. This court declines to become involved in an activity better left to those in Lansing."⁷⁸

• The Georgia Court of Appeals in Rhodes v. R. G. Industries, Inc., stated, "The enactment of comprehensive licensing provisions for suppliers and purchasers of handguns is indicia that the legislature is not inclined to ban the use of such weapons, and that legislators do not feel that the marketing of handguns to the public is an unreasonably dangerous or socially unacceptable activity. We must conclude that the General Assembly does not intend to control further the manufacture, distribution or use of handguns. This court is prohibited from altering the status quo since the legislature's present position is within constitutional limits."⁷⁹

• In Richardson v. Holland et al., the Missouri Court of Appeals decided, "Whether or not the individuals on this court, if members of the legislature, would vote to ban the manufacture or impose strict liability upon the manufacture of Saturday Night Specials [i.e., cheap, easily concealed handguns] is immaterial.... [T]he plaintiff's petition does not, under judicial or common law principles, state a cause of action in strict liability or negligence against F.I.E. This court cannot create one by judicial legislation."⁸⁰

It is clear that the lawsuits considered in this study, especially in the Hamilton case filed by Elisa Barnes, call for judicial lawmaking. Ms. Barnes requested Judge Weinstein because of his proclivity for making novel judicial law, and she fought successfully against having him removed when his standing to hear the case was challenged by the defendant gun manufacturers.⁸¹

To this point, the courts have recognized that further erosion of the separation of powers between the legislative and judicial functions of government is not in the country's long-term best interest.

Destroying Sound Tort Law Principles. The suits against the gun makers also would reverse a well-established principle in tort law: manufacturers are not responsible for the criminal misuse of their products. If this principle is discarded, the courts will be crushed under the weight of new lawsuits and it will not be long before extremists among us try to use the law to shut industrial civilization down. Should automobile makers be held responsible for vehicular homicides committed by drunken drivers or people in the grip of road rage? Criminals also use knives, prescription drugs and household products to commit crimes. Should courts hold the manufacturers of these products at fault?⁸² Where will the lawsuit parade end?

The courts are fully aware of the potential difficulties posed if manufacturers are held responsible for the criminal misuse or negligent use of nondefective products. Accordingly, they have thus far rejected attempts to alter tort law to single out and punish the firearms industry.

The state of Massachusetts' Continuing Legal Education program recently included a seminar entitled "Gun Litigation." Attorney Anne Kimball argued that attempts to impose liability on firearms manufacturers either because of the inherent nature of the product or its distribution would fail.⁸³ Ms. Kimball detailed three legal arguments raised against firearms manufacturers, all of which the courts have thus far uniformly rejected.

• First, firearms manufacturers' products are defective because they are inherently dangerous,⁸⁴ they function as intended⁸⁵ or they have characteristics that make them desirable and effective (e.g., they are inexpensive, easily concealed and fire when the trigger is pulled).⁸⁶

• Second, firearms manufacturers fail to warn of the dangers inherent in firearms use and from misuse.⁸⁷

• Third, firearms production and distribution is an abnormally dangerous activity⁸⁸ or firearms are distributed negligently.⁸⁹

In short, the courts have recognized that firearms are no different from many other potentially dangerous products. They are legal, every reasonable person knows that if misused they are dangerous (the general opinion of the courts could be summed up as "everybody knows that guns are dangerous") and their sale and marketing are regulated by federal and state governments. Indeed, with more than 240 million firearms in circulation, accidental firearms injuries and deaths are far from "foreseeable" (as claimed in the New Orleans lawsuit) when compared to problems caused by other products in common use. According to the National Safety Council, fewer people die from accidental shootings than from automobile accidents, drowning, burning or smoke inhalation, choking to death or medical misadventures. Though misuse of their products costs thousands of lives each year, neither car dealers nor knife retailers are required to go through a federal licensing procedure that includes providing fingerprints, submitting to a personal history background check and showing proof that certain product storage and inventory mandates are met. Though the news media often publicize accidental firearms injuries to children, far fewer children are injured in the shooting sports than are injured playing any of the major team sports, or even competitive sports not normally considered hazardous - table tennis, for example. In addition, in 1997 approximately 3,100 children age 14 and under died in automobile accidents, 1,050 drowned, 500 died in bicycle accidents and 700 died in fires, while fewer than 250 died from accidental gunfire.⁹⁰ [See Figure IV.]

Requiring manufacturers to monitor the sales of guns beyond initial retail sales poses potential privacy concerns. Furthermore, there is no legal justification for imposing higher standards for gun marketing and sales than already exist or are imposed on other product manufacturers.

Courts in both New York and Illinois (the states where Hamilton, City of Chicago and Young were filed) have already ruled in previous cases on most of the contentions made by the plaintiffs in the lawsuits under way.⁹¹ Among the rulings:

• "[T]o impose a legal duty here would create limitless liability. This would be inappropriate because . . . the gun/ammunition manufacturer has no control over the actions of a criminal whose goal might be to randomly kill or seriously injure innocent people."⁹²

• "New York does not impose a duty upon a manufacturer to refrain from the lawful distribution of a nondefective product."⁹³

• "Plaintiffs allege that based on the large number of injuries and deaths resulting from the use of handguns to commit crime, criminal misuse was foreseeable and the defendant handgun manufacturers and distributors were negligent in marketing its handguns to the general public . . . [and] that the defendant handgun manufacturers and distributors had a duty to determine whether its retailers had taken all reasonable measures to screen prospective purchasers and a duty to terminate sales to those retailers the defendants knew or had reason to know had a history of sales to persons who had used its handguns in crime. . . . [T]here is no basis for imposing common law negligence upon a handgun manufacturer for injuries sustained by the victims of illegal handgun violence."⁹⁴

This leaves only the novel claim that guns are a public nuisance.⁹⁵ Recently the courts have provided some guidance on this type of claim. Bubalo et al. v. Navegar, Inc., was the first case to pursue the public nuisance theory against gun manufacturers.⁹⁶ The court dismissed the case, citing the previous court decisions that manufacturing handguns was not in itself an ultrahazardous activity, that there could be no liability for merely manufacturing dangerous products and that the marketing and sale of handguns was also not dangerous activities. Since no injury is the direct result of the manufacture or sale of the firearms, the court concluded that the public nuisance claim was mistaken. Nevertheless, David Kairys and Mayor Rendell reportedly used the case as the model for their possible public nuisance lawsuit.

The cases discussed in this study provide no new basis in law for making gun manufacturers insurers against the misuse of their products via the judiciary.⁹⁷ But even if a legal basis could be found, holding manufacturers responsible for gun violence and misuse would be unsound public policy.⁹⁸

Bad Public Policy: Disarming Citizens

The ultimate result of successful lawsuits against gun manufacturers would be to reduce access to firearms, thus making citizens less safe. Public safety would be impaired in less direct ways as well.⁹⁹ In Philadelphia, Mayor Rendell's staff calculated that the cost of filing the city's lawsuit would have exceeded $1 million.¹⁰⁰ There is no reason to think that Chicago's lawsuit will cost less - and under current law and judicial holdings it is unlikely to succeed, meaning public money and time that could have gone toward law enforcement will be wasted.

It also is unlikely that the gun industry would cease to produce and sell firearms, even if it were to lose in the courts. The general public supports gun use, according to public opinion polls that show only 16 percent of Americans favor banning handguns and fewer than 5 percent favor banning rifles.¹⁰¹

Instead, it is likely that the price of firearms would increase to cover expanded liability insurance coverage, sales monitoring programs and personalized gun safety technologies.¹⁰² Another possible outcome is that smaller gun manufacturers or those with slim profit margins would go bankrupt while more successful firms would survive, shifting from the civilian to the police and military gun markets.¹⁰³ This also would drive up the cost of firearms to civilians.

Relatively affluent Americans would still be able to purchase guns for self-defense and sport, while the urban poor (typically minorities), who already suffer the most from criminal depredation, would not. The poor experience nearly twice as much violent crime as do others.

• Inner-city residents are approximately 33 percent more likely to suffer a violent crime than suburban residents and 40 percent more likely than rural residents.

• Blacks, who make up a disproportionate share of the population of large urban areas, are three times as likely as whites to be robbed and twice as likely to suffer aggravated assault, and they make up half of all murder victims although they represent only 12.6 percent of the population. ¹⁰⁴

Thus higher gun prices would disarm precisely those individuals who are most likely to face violent crime and who would most benefit from easier access to guns and widespread gun ownership. ¹⁰⁵

If gun makers either went bankrupt or virtually ceased civilian production, the value of guns would increase and the black market in firearms would grow. The law allows private citizens to sell some or all of their guns without regulation as long as theirs is not a regular business enterprise. As gun values rise, private sales of firearms would likely increase, with some people amassing entire arsenals "off the books." In addition, the higher prices that guns would fetch on the black market would make gun thefts more profitable and thus more likely. Since retail firearms sales to private citizens currently subsidize the cost of guns to local police, federal agents and the military, the price of guns to law enforcement and military personnel would increase.

Hey guys wasup anything new>> We may be going to war with Iran what do yall think?

Is it ok for a Christian to kill a Muslim?? what do yall think???

S.W.A.T.

OK GREAT MOVIE "the point(or is it tip?) of the spear" was awsum! A must see 5 Christian men were willing to litterally be killed for the sake fo Christ. THEY HAD GUNS AND THEY DIDNT SHOOT THE INDIANS!!! THEY LET THE SPEAR THEM TO DEATH!!!! THATS  IS FAITH!!! John 15 There is no greater love than for one to lay down his life for his friends. ARE YOU WILLING TO DIE THAT CHRIST MAY BE GLORIFIED? How far would we take it? Could we really do that?

That scares me to think about what I would do...

S.W.A.T.

Ok what is special about this passage?

John 8: 1-11

1 But Jesus went to the ^R488 Mount of Olives. 2 Early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people were coming to Him; and He ^R489 sat down and began to teach them. 3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court, 4 they said to Him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act. 5 "Now in the Law Moses ^R490 commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?" 6 They were saying this, testing ^R491 Him, so ^R492 that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground. 7 But when they persisted in asking Him, He ^R493 straightened up, and said to them, "He ^R494 who is without sin among you, let him be the first ^R495 to throw a stone at her." 8 Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 When they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the center of the court. 10 Straightening ^R496 up, Jesus said to her, "Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?" 11 She said, "No one, Lord." ^F92 And Jesus said, "I ^R497 do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin ^R498 no more."]

Hey guys wasup nithing new here about to start a new Job! Getting better at what God has called mw to! Ill give you two guesses!!! Anyway, I have 2 more years left of school or so! YAY Ill be not too old when I get out!  Anyway what do you think? Who is the hotest movies star and who was the most interesting Bible Character? Besides Jesus! and God the Father, and God the Spirit. So whoes the hotest and whoes the most interesting?