Staff Reports
Smith & Wesson is sick of taking the blame for the irresponsible actions of a tiny fraction of its clientele, just as its customers are sick of being stereotyped as gun nuts.
In light of the recent rise in school and mass shootings in the United States, the idea of accusing the gun makers for the choices of the end user has gained significant traction. Many people are quick to point out what they perceive to be easy access to firearms, but they forget how much simpler it actually was just 50 years ago, when restrictions were far less stringent.
The firm has recently been criticizing politicians and media outlets that vilify and undermine law enforcement while backing prosecutors who are too lenient with criminals and advocate for near-anarchy by failing to enforce sanctions. And then they have the audacity to point fingers at Smith & Wesson and other gun manufacturers for the crime wave that has predictably ensued from these disastrous policies.
[T]hey are to fault for the spike in violence and lawlessness, and they aim to dodge any responsibility for the crisis of violence they have created by trying to transfer the blame onto Smith & Wesson and other firearm makers and law-abiding gun owners. Law-abiding citizens' Second Amendment rights have been attacked by some politicians who, rather than admit the failure of their policies, have sought greater restrictions on gun ownership.
These comments reveal that Smith & Wesson is sick and weary of having their firm treated unfairly. They didn't set out to be the face of gun violence, and they certainly didn't want for their products to be used in massacres like these. Instead, they serve purposes such as personal protection, hunting, and target practice. It's not hard to see why the Democrats are targeting the brand, given the widespread availability of firearms in the United States.
As unfortunate as it is for the left and their goal of disarming the populace, these businesses and the people who support them aren't going to sit idly by while they're made into victims. They are perfectly content to defend themselves from harm, just as their wares are meant to do. This is a battle they are eager to take on, and with the outcomes of countries who haven't, they'd be wise to do so.
It is surprising that it took so long for these producers to stand up and fight back against the media's attacks. The left has not only been playing unequally, but has gone out of its way to make these attacks feel very individual. The victims' loved ones' distress is understandable, but it's wrong to punish the company that made the tool they used to commit their crimes.
Examining the situation dispassionately. A person's decision to drink and drive is not the fault of Budweiser. The fatal crash was not Ford's fault. The bartender should be held responsible if he or she overserves a customer and then fails to make any reasonable effort to ensure the customer's safe return home. In a similar vein, if a gun store sells a weapon to someone who fails a background check, shows evidence of mental instability, or admits they intend to use the gun to commit a crime, they can be held responsible.
Knowing the attacker personally makes all the difference.
Neither Budweiser nor Ford has any way of knowing if a customer will be driving drunk. In a similar vein, Smith & Wesson cannot predict how a customer will use one of their firearms. Consequently, it's not reasonable to hold them responsible for a mass shooting. If someone died as a result of drinking and driving, you wouldn't hold Bud or Ford responsible, would you?
The preceding is a summary of an article that originally appeared on Morning Pundit News.
