Readers React: Why allowing gun makers to be sued for the misuse of their products makes no sense
To the editor: Holding gun makers accountable for the misuse of their products is analogous to blaming General Motors for the 1999 incident in which a man drove his Cadillac through a Costa Mesa schoolyard. (Remember that?)
Apparently, the best argument the Connecticut plaintiffs can muster against gun maker Remington is that the Bushmaster XM15-E2S used in the 2012 Newtown massacre was marketed irresponsibly. So, what industry is next? Auto manufacturers that feature speeding cars in their ads?
Moreover, the editorial failed to mention the fact that there is no functional difference between “military-style” and regular semiautomatic weapons. And, virtually every handgun made in the last three decades, including the .45-caliber handgun used in the Thousand Oaks shooting last year, happens to be a semiautomatic.
Does the L.A. Times editorial board want these handguns banned too?
Lloyd Forrester, Simi Valley
To the editor: The National Rifle Assn. should be included as one of the defendants.
The NRA’s America’s 1st Freedom website lists “10 Reasons To Own An AR-15.” The second reason includes this: “The gun is easy to shoot — and easy to hit targets with. And, as you know, nothing’s more fun than hitting what you shoot at.”
The first reason amplifies the virtues of an AR-15: “It’s easy to learn and easy to use. It’s accurate. It’s reliable.”
So, if you are inclined to take out a lot of people all at once, the NRA has advice.
Tom Budlong, Los Angeles
A cure for the common opinion
Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.