Lawyers for cities lining up to sue the gun industry are likely to be successful unless gun manufacturers and pro-gun groups band together, a noted criminologist told WorldNetDaily.
John R. Lott, Jr., author of More Guns, Less Crime — Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws,” said he believes companies and gun
organizations “should immediately make a public pledge to fight together” the impending litigation, to send a signal to cities who have not yet joined the lawsuits that they’re serious about defending themselves.
“My biggest fear is that so many cities will eventually join this lawsuit that it will be difficult financially for the gun makers to remain in business,” Lott said. “At some point they would all have to make an economic decision on whether or not it was feasible to continue fighting the suits.”
Lott said the sheer number of lawsuits that could be brought against gun
manufacturers is cost prohibitive. He said a company like Smith and Wesson, for example, which might have had total sales of just $25 million last year in its firearms division, will have trouble fending off an number of suits costing anywhere from a few million to tens of millions of dollars to defend.
“If they lose,” Lott added, “then the costs really mount up quickly.”
He also said that the gun industry as a whole does not have the wealth of the
tobacco companies — the last industry to be held liable for so-called public
health endangerment. And, he added, it has become clear that cities are taking their cue from the tobacco lawsuits in order to launch a very similar propaganda campaign against another politically incorrect industry — guns.
But the outcome is far from certain, he admits. Last week U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein dropped 15 wholesalers from a lawsuit in New York after expressing doubts about their liability, and the jury is still debating the charges of negligent marketing made against the gun manufacturers in the case, where plaintiffs are seeking $14 million against some handgun makers.
Nevertheless, Lott said, attorneys are advising city administrators in Chicago, New Orleans, Bridgeport, Conn., and Miami-Dade County that the gun makers indeed will fold eventually and hence, cities should press ahead with their suits. Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Baltimore are considering filing suits of their own.
“The only way the cities still waiting in the wings, having not yet decided whether to join in the suits — the only way they will join is if they’re assured the gun makers will pay,” Lott said.
Since the perception in the cities is that the gun industry will eventually back down, like the tobacco industry, “it’s vital to send the message to the cities that there will be no surrender,” Lott added.
“Gun groups could begin by moving to cover some of the legal costs of the gun makers,” Lott said. “Already a few outdoor supply companies have pledged something like one percent of their net revenues to the gun makers, to help them defend themselves. Much more of a commitment is needed, though, before cities would decide not to file their cases.” City governments, usually operating on tight budgets, would not want to answer to their citizens if they spent millions of taxpayer dollars on a lawsuit they eventually lost, Lott reasoned.
Lott said the funding effort should begin with the largest gun owners groups — the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America. Other smaller organizations could then contribute themselves or help gather contributions earmarked for that purpose.
Gun companies are not as wealthy as people might think, Lott said.
Jeff Ray, a spokesman for Beretta U.S.A., told WorldNetDaily that his company plans an aggressive fight.
“We plan to fight in ways the mayors (of the litigating cities) did not anticipate,” he said, though he would not provide any details about the kind of defense his company planned to mount.
However, he said, “We will look at things the city officials claim to have been doing all along — but have not done — to keep their cities safe,” Ray said. “We’ll also be looking at what they’ve done to contribute” to the charges they are leveling against gun companies.
Ray said Beretta wasn’t “taking any cues from the tobacco industry,” because
“I think they settled because of their practices.” He said their admission they lied about certain ingredients in cigarettes, which make them stronger and more habit-forming, probably caused their downfall.
“But with guns, everyone knows they’re lethal,” he said. “Obviously
we’re not trying to hide that.”
Ray said the cities were trying to blame their failure to enforce their own laws on the gun companies, and he predicted that strategy was weak and indefensible.
“However, if the lawsuits go favorably for the cities,” Ray added, “the biggest losers here will be police officers. If the lawsuits put us out of business, law enforcement officers will be unable to buy high quality firearms in this country.”
In his book, Lott says the popular misconception is that more guns add to crime when the opposite is actually the case. His study for his book, which took into account data from all 3,141 U.S. counties from 1977 to 1994, prove that increased law enforcement efforts contribute the most to decreases in violent crime rate. But, he said the second largest contributing factor to lowering violent crime rates — especially in large, metropolitan areas – are more guns, not more gun control laws.
“The states which issue the most concealed carry permits have the biggest drops in violent crime,” he said. That drop is sustained and actually increases as more people are licensed to carry a firearm.
In some areas of the country where gun proliferation is uninhibited, “those areas are experiencing 15 percent decreases in murder rates, 9 percent decreases in rapes, and 11 percent decreases in robberies, and these rates are over and above the decreases on the national level.”
