2018-02-12 17:05:26 UTC
Does the Firearms Industry Have a Responsibility to Limit “Gun Violence”?
Question of the Day
BY ROBERT FARAGO |FEB 09, 2018 |120 COMMENTS
Bill Ruger (courtesy tacticallife.com)
The New York Times has decided that now’s a good time to revisit Bill Ruger’s
pro-gun control position, starting like this . . .
When Devin Patrick Kelley took a Ruger AR-556 semiautomatic assault rifle to
the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Tex., last November, he
brought 15 high-capacity magazines that each contained 30 bullets . . .
If William B. Ruger Sr., the co-founder of the gun maker Sturm, Ruger &
Company, had had his way, Mr. Kelley’s firepower might have been much
diminished. In 1989, Mr. Ruger proposed a ban on high-capacity magazines,
which led a smaller rival to call Sturm, Ruger “the Benedict Arnold of the
In 1994, he said his company would only sell a high-capacity magazine to
“Someone who is not a police officer can buy one made elsewhere, but we can’t
do anything about that,” he said. “What we can do is be a responsible
firearms manufacturer ourselves. And we believe we are.”
The article points out that no one in the Ruger clan has a say about what
happens at Ruger these days. But implies that America is worse for big Bill’s
Twenty-six people died in the Sutherland Springs shooting, including the
pastor’s 14-year-old daughter and a pregnant woman, while another 20 were
injured by a gun bearing the Ruger name. If he were alive today, America’s
most outspoken gun maker would likely have had something to say.
I wonder what that would be. Meanwhile, does the American firearms industry
have a moral responsibility to try to limit firearms-related crime?
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.