I have to assume that Greg Palast of the Baltimore Chronical & Sentinel has some mental illness that prevents him from thinking clearly. How else to explain an editorial that starts off:
There are 200 million guns in civilian hands in the United States. That works out at 200 per lawyer. Wade through the foaming websites of the anti-Semites, weekend militiamen and Republicans, and it becomes clear that many among America's well-armed citizenry have performed the same calculation...
So to him, there is no difference between Republicans and anti-Semites? And Republicans are all foaming at the mouth? Frankly, the only spittle I see flying about is coming from liberals such as him:
And that is why a shoot-to-kill coalition in the Senate, led by Wild Bill Frist (R-Tenn) and his simpering sidekick, Scary Harry Reid (D-Nev), voted yesterday to grant immunity from law suits to gun makers.
In one typical case, a young man, Steven Fox, described feeling pieces of his brain fly from his skull after a mugger shot him. He is permanently paralyzed.
But, hey, that's business for you. And what a business it is. Guns, ammo and accessories are a $6 billion-a-year honey pot for several corporations: Glock, Smith & Wesson, Colt and too many others.
But, the gun-o-philiacs say, what does po' widdle Smith & Wesson have to do with a mugger who uses its gun in an unsocial manner?
This cop-out drives Elisa Barnes crazy. Barnes is the lawyer who brought the groundbreaking lawsuit against handgun manufacturers which, for the first time, were found negligent in abetting a criminal.
It's lawyers like Barnes -- and victims like Fox -- that the Senate went gunning for.
Barnes thought it was just too convenient for gun makers to blame the criminal alone. Through investigation and statistical analysis she concluded that sales to criminals are a much-valued - if unpublicized - market segment sought out and provisioned by these upstanding manufacturers.
Her calculations are compelling. Gun companies dumped several million weapons into outlets in states with few curbs on purchases, super-saturating the legal market so that excess would flow up the "Iron Pipeline" to meet black market demand in New York and other big cities.
What's interesting about the "case" she won is that no gun was ever recovered, so the suit was filed against all gun makers who offer .25 caliber handguns. Needless to say, she probably shopped around and found a sympathetic jury. But that's all besides the point. Or is it? We're talking about some mutant who injured a kid with a gun. That's tragic but it isn't the fault of the manufacturer, it's the fault of the mutant.
The claim that gun makers are "dumping" millions of guns in urban shops is false. Large gun manufacturers don't send guns on approval. They typically use distributors who only send the guns that the gun store ORDERED. That's how it works.
Car makers have large dealerships in urban areas and urban areas have more traffic accidents and car crime than rural ones. Are Ford and GM flooding the market? And should Ford be blamed because a drunk driver mows down a group of people? If someone is injured in a "hit-and-run" and they can't identify the car, should all automakers be held liable for the crime?
That is why the "Lawful Commerce Act" is so necessary. The blame should be placed squarely on the shoulders of those who commit the crime, not the company that made the gun, or in the future, cars or knives or beer or whatever else trial lawyers will soon set their sights on.
Palast then compares the gun companies to companies that made products for Hitler's Third Reich and prattles:
Hitler's manufacturers finally coughed up their blood money when the defense, "We were only taking orders," failed to impress US judges.
Glock's profits belong too its victims as well. But as soon as our President signs the new immunity law, "We were only taking orders" (for more guns) will be a Bush-blessed defense.
It's interesting that those on the left manage to compare ANYTHING they don't like (prisons for terrorists, President Bush, et cetera) to Hitler. And probably telling, as well since they are the ones who want dictatorial control over all our lives because they know better and they know what's good for us. If they can't get their way in Congress, they'll try to litigate us into their version of a utopian society where we all eat or read or hear and act only what and how they want us to. What the hell, it works in Saudi Arabia, right?