Sunday, February 09, 2003

Here is a copy of the affidavit filed by Robert Ricker in support of various lawsuits against the firearms manufacturing industry. For a little background, please look at my previous comments.

Again, I find nothing factually damning in any of Mr. Ricker's accounts. It mainly seems to be opinion about what the firearms industry can do to slow down the illegal trade in firearms. Not suprisingly it seems to be a lot of the same opinions voiced over the years by Handgun Control Inc, the Brady Campaigns, the VPC, etc.
Here are various pieces concerning Mr. Ricker's statements: Brady Campaign statement, a NY Times op/ed, an AP report picked up in the SF Gate & an article from which brings up some inportant points about Mr. Rickers testimony & credibility.

But what the affidavit does show is that certain members of the firearms industry were becoming suspicious of Mr. Ricker's opinions & interactions with Mr. Clinton, a notoriously anti-gun president. I would assume that Mr. Ricker has long held views that were contradictory to the idea of having less gun control. On the surface it seems like he was just calling for voluntary reform within the business that would make things easier on the gun industry. & to an extent that was the case: by pushing for the oluntary implementation of certain programs, then there would be no need to legislatively require those programs. But what must be remembered is that all of the programs Mr. Ricker seemed to be in favor of have never shown any positive effects & in some cases are detrimental to any effort to curtail the legal burden on citizens who own arms & manufacturers & dealers who supply those arms.
For example, the idea of voluntarily supplying gun locks with each firearm. Yes, there are situations where gun locks are useful, & some where they are essential. What Mr. Ricker & others who support these programs fail to realize is that most people who would use a gun lock would purchase it seperately. Throwing it in with the gun does little more than drive up the price of said gun. I doubt a person would use a lock included with the gun if they did not plan on using a lock even if they had to purchase it seperately. Consequently, there are situations where a gun lock is not a good idea. I would hate to fumble with a combination or a key & then have to look for my ammo & load the piece if I woke up in the middle of the night to the sounds of people breaking into my place. Any arm bought for the purpose of self defense should be immedietely accessible. Children are a legitimate consideration, as well as leaving the arm unattended, but as I've said before, I doubt the inclusion of a lock with the gun would effect a persons decision to use a lock. They sell all sorts of locking devices at every gun store that I remember being in. Any person purchasing a gun has the oppurtunity to purchase a lock at the same time. If a person does not wish to buy a lock, it shouldn't be thrust upon him along with the cost of said lock added to the gun.

Nevertheless Mr. Ricker touts the idea of mandatory inclusion as a proven method to reduce accidental shootings. There are other examples where his views can be easily & effectively contradicted, but unfortunately I don't have the time to go into them in detail. Perhaps in the future I'll list some of the bigger anti-gun ideas & their counter-arguements.

No comments: