Oh bother...
July 29, 2005
July 28, 2005
July 27, 2005
Bill to shield gun makers, dealers up for vote - Politics - MSNBC.com
Here is an article about a proposed law written by the NRA to shield gun manufacturers from liabiity for the use of their product. While I rarely ever agree with the NRA, I do agree with this idea. I, as paradoxically as this will sound, am a liberal that believes in personal responsibility. If I am killed by a gun tomorrow, then I blame the person that used the gun. Society has laws to punish those that offend. I believe the only reason some want to go after the gun manufacturers is that they have the money. I am afraid to say that this seems to be a case of the lawyers going after the ones with the money.
Now, here comes the place I part company with this line of thought. If you want to shield gun manufacturers from liability, you have to apply the law equally. If I manufacturer tobacco or alcohol, don't I deserve the same protection. What about the manufacturers of the game, Grand Theft Auto. They are being sued in at least one case for a teen killing 4 police officers. Surely if a gun manufacturer is not liable for the use of its product, a game manufacturer is not liable for what some fool thinks would be cool to emulate.
The broader theme here is that we tend to put blinders on toward a a philosophy depending upon how it effects us. We are by nature partial to decisions that have an effect. I suppose this trait is simply human nature. I believe in a law that is applied fairly. I may not like what the video game does, but I fail to see how I could ask for a liability shield for one group and not the other. Part of personal ethics is the ability to apply my ethics in a uniform method. When we start to pick and choose the battles based on how it impacts us, then at the end of the day, we stand for nothing.
Now, here comes the place I part company with this line of thought. If you want to shield gun manufacturers from liability, you have to apply the law equally. If I manufacturer tobacco or alcohol, don't I deserve the same protection. What about the manufacturers of the game, Grand Theft Auto. They are being sued in at least one case for a teen killing 4 police officers. Surely if a gun manufacturer is not liable for the use of its product, a game manufacturer is not liable for what some fool thinks would be cool to emulate.
The broader theme here is that we tend to put blinders on toward a a philosophy depending upon how it effects us. We are by nature partial to decisions that have an effect. I suppose this trait is simply human nature. I believe in a law that is applied fairly. I may not like what the video game does, but I fail to see how I could ask for a liability shield for one group and not the other. Part of personal ethics is the ability to apply my ethics in a uniform method. When we start to pick and choose the battles based on how it impacts us, then at the end of the day, we stand for nothing.
July 26, 2005
I was walking by the Smithsonian the other day...
Clearly one of the benefits to working near Washington DC is its proximity to the things most people think of as tourist attractions. David is going to summer camp this week at the Smithsonian Institution. SO, every morning we take the train into DC, and wander around the monuments. It really never gets old to be able to look up and see the Washington Monument or the Capitol.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
