This is truly amazing when you stop and think about it. There are all sorts of very powerful businesses who would love to have blanket immunity from the harm their faulty products bring, and if we include tobacco companies, the obvious and known harms of using their products as intended, but none seem to manage to get such specific protection.
I'm not even talking about the thousands of people killed deliberately with guns, where the shooter is more or less using the gun in its intended fashion. I mean, it's arguably fair that gun manufacturers should not suffer liability for that (also arguable that they should, but I can at least understand someone making that claim). If a person gets beaten to death with a shovel, it would be bizarre to sue the shovel maker (even as that is not the intended use of a shovel).
But instead, think of all the tragic gun accidents where some better design and additional safety features could actually save lives (and save gun nuts lots of bad press from children getting shot and such). Week after week, Daily Kos' KagroX posts a round up of "gunfail" stories largely involving such tragedies:
- LEALMAN, FL, 2/12/13: Not sure how I missed this one. A Bay Area church congregation is rallying together in prayer for their pastor's daughter. The young woman was accidentally shot. According to officials with the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, church member Moises Zambrana was showing a 9mm handgun to two young men in a closet near the recreational area. Detectives say one of the men, who is Kelley's boyfriend, was interested in getting a gun. While Zambrana was showing him the safety features, authorities say the gun went off. The bullet went through the wall, and hit Kelley in the head. According to authorities, Zambrana did take out the magazine clip, but a bullet was still in the chamber. She died on Feb. 18.
All this is to say while convincing the population they don't need guns and are better off without them is the best approach, it would still be worthwhile to consider what the gun makers should be forced to do in order to make their products moderately safer, such that many moments of stupidity or irresponsibility by gun owners are less likely to end in tragedy:
- All guns should have a safety mechanism. It's ridiculous that any gun can lack such. I don't even buy that Police or Military need such a thing. I don't care what design compromises it introduces, a thing that emits death at literally the pull of a trigger needs a safety.
- All guns need an indicator that shows whether there is a round in the chamber. Mechanically this isn't hard to engineer. One of the depressingly common Kagro stories goes "I thought it was empty when I pulled the trigger." A visible indication from outside showing there's a round in there would save lives.
- Triggers need to be harder to pull as shipped from the manufacturer. Yes, I'm sure some gun types will alter it and make a hair trigger. But many won't bother, default settings should always be safer. If you go out of your way to make it less safe, fine. Many children would be saved if triggers were harder to pull. We made cigarette lighters and pill bottles harder for kids to use, why not guns?
- Require proof of, or purchase of, a trigger lock when buying any gun, including private sales. Yes, idiots would game this by having 1 trigger lock for 50 guns. Nothing's perfect but many people who wouldn't buy one otherwise would get one and would use it, since they have it.
- The safety should be put on by the act of loading the magazine or chambering a round. I'm less certain this can be done mechanically but if it can be, it should be. Safety should be the default, rather than having to remember to put the safety "on" when readying the weapon, you should have to remember to take it off to fire it. I'd also be more than fine if it is spring loaded and the shooter has to hold the safety off in order to keep firing, that it re-engages once their hand is removed.
- Require trigger guards. Stupid but some weapons don't have them. Brushing up agaisnt something or dropping the weapon shouldn't pull the trigger.
- Two-handed holding to fire. You could design weapons that required two hands on the weapon to fire. Rifles could require the weapon be in your shoulder to fire. There are a variety of ways to really help ensure the weapon only fires when you're positively aiming and mean to pull the trigger. That won't stop all forms of tragic stupidity, but it will help.
- Sell a device that is designed to catch at least low power rounds. Idea here is that this is where you aim when clearing the action of your weapon in the home/garage/etc. I know at CF bases in warzones, the practice was to require a little sand-bunker area by the gate, so returning patrols could safety their weapons (removing magazines and chambered rounds) and "fire" the empty action into the sandbags - even if a mistake was made and a round fired, no one would be hurt. Kagro always has a bunch of "pointed it at the floor/wall and it fired, bullet went through and killed someone on the other side" stories. Like trigger locks require gun owners to have at least one of these things. One that will stop a .44 or a 7.62mm round is of course likely impractical but something that would stop a .22 is not. Lots of people are killed by .22 rounds.
- Warning labels on boxes of Ammo ("This calibre can kill children. Don't leave guns loaded!" etc). Safety manuals with the guns like the ones you get with a kid carseat (lots of diagrams with bad uses of the carseat and warnings "death will result if you do this!").
A basic tenet of user interface design in computer science is to make errors more difficult and the consequences less severe. Design so that the things people commonly do work out as intended or at least do no harm. That's why most software will prompt you "are you sure?" when you've chosen to do something irreversible like delete a bunch of files or format a drive. Why certain powerful options are buried in an "advanced" menu so you have to go looking for that possibly dangerous feature and really mean to turn it on. Guns delete lives, it's not too much to ask that they get the nearest analog of an "are you sure?" prompt built in at design level.
Oh and don't you dare tell me that gun culture takes seriously safety. If it did, everything above would already be baked into the design of "mainstream" guns and any guns lacking these features would be some kind of antique or exotic find, like the guy you know who has a car old enough to be grandfathered in before seatbelts were mandatory. Unsafe guns (as they would be regarded) wouldn't be allowed at ranges and would be illegal to use hunting. Collectors might have them but they wouldn't be in regular circulation. Instead, gun culture would fight tooth and nail against most or all of this and instead rely on the proven failure "individual responsibility" as if people themselves will somehow magically evolve to be smarter and more reliable than we really are. People are flawed, we know that, you address that by improving the system, not demanding better people.