http://www.ocregister.com/liberty/editorial1.shtml
Colt pulls back from firing line
October 21, 1999
When an old-line American manufacturer announces cutbacks and
layoffs of union workers, one can usually count on liberal pundits to
weep and gnash their teeth. Odd, isn't it, that the announcement by
Colt's Manufacturing Co. that it would pull back from the consumer
handgun business was greeted with hosannas instead?
The reason for the inconsistency, of course, is that firearms
manufacturers, even more so than tobacco companies, HMOs and
liquor producers, have been demonized by those on the political
left. The thought that litigation against gun makers might have
brought one to its knees was enough to make gun foes downright
giddy.
Yet there's little reason for the rest of us to be smiling.
Despite the lawsuits-sink-gun-maker coverage, the details of the
Colt announcement are still murky. Such reports were rebutted by
the Connecticut-based firearms maker, which denied that "it is
exiting the total handgun portion of its business." The company said
it is merely eliminating "some of its unprofitable handgun lines," that
it is focusing its efforts on smart gun technology with a startup
company called iColt and that the decision wasn't prompted by
litigation.
Gun industry observers have noted that Colt has struggled with
profitability for decades. Reorganization was "just the final straw for
a company that was financially unable to compete in the civilian
marketplace," wrote former National Rifle Association
spokeswoman Tanya Metaska in a recent Internet column.
Whatever the fate of Colt, and whatever the reason for its
marketing decision, this much is clear: Lawsuits, regulations and
other attempts to stifle private firearms ownership most certainly
will take their toll on the Second Amendment.
"The suits are so meritless, but companies can't say for sure that
they won't have to pay a penny," David Kopel told us; he is
research director for the Independence Institute in Colorado. The
gun makers understand the price could be very high for how much
money they'll have to pay in litigation costs, plus they must operate
under so much uncertainty that it can affect their business decisions.
"The cigarette industry withstood 20 years of frivolous legislation
before they crumbled (and settled)," he said. "But if you take the
whole gun industry in this country and roll it together you won't
have one Fortune 500 company." He worries that the industry
won't have the money to resist the legal onslaught — even though
an Ohio court dismissed one of the many suits cities have filed
against manufacturers.
The lawsuits are on shaky ground because they target legal
products that operate as they are designed. It's not as if gun makers
are being sued for producing firearms that explode in the user's
face. But that doesn't mean that the lawsuits won't "succeed" by
pushing up the price of firearms, driving small manufacturers out of
business and therefore making it more difficult for individuals to
purchase weapons.
What the lawsuit-happy pols and attorneys don't recognize is that
firearms, although often used in the commission of crimes, have
legitimate and important uses. We're not just talking about hunting
and target shooting, but as defenses against crime. Indeed, statistics
show hundreds of thousands of defensive uses of guns in America
each year. And many crimes never were committed because
criminals feared that the intended victim was armed.
But logic isn't important here. "There's a group of mean-spirited
prohibitionists who hate guns, gun owners and all they stand for,"
Mr. Kopel said. "They won't stop until all guns are banned. After
that they'll move on to knives, which is exactly what's happening in
England."
Until people understand this dynamic, don't be surprised if more
manufacturers scale back the production of handguns, rifles or
other legitimate weapons. It may not be fair, but it will be a fait
accompli unless concerned Americans take action.
Colt pulls back from firing line
October 21, 1999
When an old-line American manufacturer announces cutbacks and
layoffs of union workers, one can usually count on liberal pundits to
weep and gnash their teeth. Odd, isn't it, that the announcement by
Colt's Manufacturing Co. that it would pull back from the consumer
handgun business was greeted with hosannas instead?
The reason for the inconsistency, of course, is that firearms
manufacturers, even more so than tobacco companies, HMOs and
liquor producers, have been demonized by those on the political
left. The thought that litigation against gun makers might have
brought one to its knees was enough to make gun foes downright
giddy.
Yet there's little reason for the rest of us to be smiling.
Despite the lawsuits-sink-gun-maker coverage, the details of the
Colt announcement are still murky. Such reports were rebutted by
the Connecticut-based firearms maker, which denied that "it is
exiting the total handgun portion of its business." The company said
it is merely eliminating "some of its unprofitable handgun lines," that
it is focusing its efforts on smart gun technology with a startup
company called iColt and that the decision wasn't prompted by
litigation.
Gun industry observers have noted that Colt has struggled with
profitability for decades. Reorganization was "just the final straw for
a company that was financially unable to compete in the civilian
marketplace," wrote former National Rifle Association
spokeswoman Tanya Metaska in a recent Internet column.
Whatever the fate of Colt, and whatever the reason for its
marketing decision, this much is clear: Lawsuits, regulations and
other attempts to stifle private firearms ownership most certainly
will take their toll on the Second Amendment.
"The suits are so meritless, but companies can't say for sure that
they won't have to pay a penny," David Kopel told us; he is
research director for the Independence Institute in Colorado. The
gun makers understand the price could be very high for how much
money they'll have to pay in litigation costs, plus they must operate
under so much uncertainty that it can affect their business decisions.
"The cigarette industry withstood 20 years of frivolous legislation
before they crumbled (and settled)," he said. "But if you take the
whole gun industry in this country and roll it together you won't
have one Fortune 500 company." He worries that the industry
won't have the money to resist the legal onslaught — even though
an Ohio court dismissed one of the many suits cities have filed
against manufacturers.
The lawsuits are on shaky ground because they target legal
products that operate as they are designed. It's not as if gun makers
are being sued for producing firearms that explode in the user's
face. But that doesn't mean that the lawsuits won't "succeed" by
pushing up the price of firearms, driving small manufacturers out of
business and therefore making it more difficult for individuals to
purchase weapons.
What the lawsuit-happy pols and attorneys don't recognize is that
firearms, although often used in the commission of crimes, have
legitimate and important uses. We're not just talking about hunting
and target shooting, but as defenses against crime. Indeed, statistics
show hundreds of thousands of defensive uses of guns in America
each year. And many crimes never were committed because
criminals feared that the intended victim was armed.
But logic isn't important here. "There's a group of mean-spirited
prohibitionists who hate guns, gun owners and all they stand for,"
Mr. Kopel said. "They won't stop until all guns are banned. After
that they'll move on to knives, which is exactly what's happening in
England."
Until people understand this dynamic, don't be surprised if more
manufacturers scale back the production of handguns, rifles or
other legitimate weapons. It may not be fair, but it will be a fait
accompli unless concerned Americans take action.