This has to win a creativity award for the most utterly ridiculous gun control proposal I’ve ever seen in my life:
We propose a new way to prod gun makers to reduce gun deaths, one that would be unlikely to put them out of business or to prevent law-abiding citizens from obtaining guns. By using a strategy known as “performance-based regulation,” we would deputize private actors — the gun makers — to deal with the negative effects of their products in ways that promote the public good.
It then goes on to speak of a performance based system where gun makers would be rewarded for drops in gun violence, and penalized for increases in gun violence. This presumes that there’s anything manufacturers can do about the fact that their products make their way onto black markets. But they have an idea for that too:
How would gun companies go about reducing gun deaths? The main thing to emphasize is that this approach relies on the nimbleness, innovation and experimentation that come from private competition — rather than on the heavy-handed power of governmental regulation. Gun makers might decide to add trigger locks to their guns, or to work only with dealers who meet certain standards of responsibility. They might withdraw their semiautomatic weapons from the consumer market, or even work hand in hand with local officials to fight gangs and increase youth employment opportunities. Surely they will think up new strategies once they have a legal obligation and financial incentive to take responsibility for the harm their products cause.
Ah yes, the old canards. Since they admit that Heller might mean they can’t just flat out ban these guns, now they need to offer incentives for no one to make them. Because a revolver is so measurably less deadly than a semi-auto pistol? Does it even matter if the “gun death” being spoken of is a suicide? How does supplying trigger locks work unless someone uses them? If this is what Heller has reduced our oppoents to, perhaps Heller is a bigger victory than I had imagined.
UPDATE: As a reader points out, this is pretty much the same type of business as the lawsuits the PLCAA was meant to put a stop to. I mean, would we hold Ford accountable for drunk driving rates, or Zippo accountable for reducing the incidence of arson? Drug makers for reducing drug suicides?
One thing that always drives me nuts about the Antis is how the speak in blanket terms like “gun deaths” and “reducing an gun use”. As if an armed burglar dropped by a store clerk with a shotgun is equivalent to an unarmed clerk being shot and killed by the same said burglar. Just ain’t so.
A recent campus memo reminding staff that for any of us with CHLs, concealed carry is still prohibited on campus by state law, and by university regs. The memo dryly stated “Any presence of guns increases the likelihood of their use”. True enough, my PT111 I left in my dresser drawer won’t get used or do anyone any good if some homicidal maniac wanders in and starts shooting up my library. If I had my carry gun with me in that scenario, the chance of my trying to use it in response is 100%. So the memo’s assertion is true, but obfuscates reality by focusing hysterically on “TWO guns in use instead of only ONE!!” rather than who’s shooting whom and why.
I wonder if they believe this should be imposed on Henkel, Ford & Louisville Slugger, Zippo & Dell as well?
All are makers of tools that can be used for evil.
Semi-auto revolvers must confound them.
Or belt-feds.
Or a modernized “harmonica gun”.
Using the power of the state to coerce private business into pursuing some alleged social good: fascist maneuver #1.
I could have sworn Heller shot down the trigger lock requirement too. Right?
Performance based regulation? If this is such a good idea why not try it on the government first?
1.For every illegal alien that slips over the border, the government is fined (in the form of tax cuts) to the citizens $100,000.
2.For every failure to enforce existing gun laws on criminals (like in Philadelphia), the government has to make a public apology and explain upon each occurrence why they did not prosecute the criminal.
Wow I like this idea!
ATL
It’s yet another demonstration that leftist academics aren’t part of the reality-based community. They start from their beliefs and work backwards rather than starting with observable facts and building hypotheses and theories.