Quote:

---

Among other protections, the 2005 arms act provides immunity to gun manufacturers even where the gun defect causes injury or death when the injury or death is caused by a "volitional act that constitutes a criminal offense." It is noteworthy that the vast majority of injuries and death by guns are caused by such an act.

Perhaps the worst part of the arms act is that it creates a disincentive for gun companies to incorporate safety mechanisms that are available to prevent guns from being used by any one other than the permit holder. Everyone agrees that there is a rampant problem with guns falling into the hands of people other than the permit holder. How often have you heard LaPierre and others blame gun deaths on stolen guns used by criminals and the mentally ill?

Ways to prevent guns from being used by others have been around for decades, starting with gun locks and, more recently, developing into "personalized" guns with thumb or palm print technology and other biometric markers. Available technology would make it nearly impossible for a gun to be used by anyone other than the authorized user, and would not affect the gun's utility.

Just as car lovers continue to love cars despite air bags and seat belts, gun lovers will continue to love guns with this technology. Unfortunately, the gun industry sees no financial reason to incorporate these safety devices, given the law's unique protection. They believe themselves largely immune from product liability lawsuits, unlike car manufacturers. So why would they invest in safety features that would make their products marginally more expensive and possibly affect sales?

The political fight in Washington and state legislatures has understandably focused on making the country safer through reasonable limits on gun sales. We should not forget, however, that there is no "safe" gun when it is in the wrong hands.

The technology exists to prevent the use of guns by other than the authorized user, but gun manufacturers have not applied it. Manufacturers should answer for this inherent flaw and litigants and the legal community need to continually test the limits of the 2005 arms act until it is repealed.

http://articles.courant.com/2013-03-22/news/h...s-industry

---