Fight disinformation. Get a daily recap of the facts that matter. Sign up for the free Mother Jones newsletter.


For over a dozen years, Stephen P. Teret has been researching and thinking about gun violence in America. In his position as director of the Johns Hopkins University Injury Prevention Center, Teret has become interested in the question of whether weapons manufacturers can be held liable for the damage their products cause people.

One promising area would be to hold gunmakers accountable for making their guns as safe as possible.

“There are things that could be done with existing technology to make handguns safer,” says Teret, “and reduce dramatically certain types of tragic shootings–such as the child who plays with a parent’s gun, a teenager who commits suicide, or an owner shot with his own gun by an intruder.

“The way to do this is to personalize the gun to the owner. The low-tech way is to provide a combination lock on the gun. The owner is the only person who knows the combination, so when it is ‘locked’ no one else can shoot it.

“The high tech way involves implanting an electrical component or receptor in the gun that is activated only by a transmitter that the owner keeps in a bracelet or ring.

“Guns can easily be child-proofed in these or other ways,” adds Teret. “In fact, Smith & Wesson used to sell a ‘child-proof’ model. Now, however, they are pushing their LadySmith handgun on young women, but they are not child-proofed even though common sense says a lot of these young women are going to be around children. So the question is, will the company be liable when something terrible happens?

“Who has moral blame? The shooter or the manufacturer, or both? What about the board of directors of the company making the guns? They are discharging a pollutant into the stream of commerce. They make decisions that have life-and-death implications for other people, but they make them on the basis of profit and loss, because of the lack of regulation by the government.”

ONE MORE QUICK THING:

Or at least we hope. It’s fall fundraising time, and we’re trying to raise $250,000 to help fund Mother Jones’ journalism during a shorter than normal three-week push.

If you’re reading this, a fundraising pitch at the bottom of an article, you must find our team’s reporting valuable and we hope you’ll consider supporting it with a donation of any amount right now if you can.

It’s really that simple. But if you’d like to read a bit more, our membership lead, Brian Hiatt, has a post for you highlighting some of our newsroom's impressive, impactful work of late—including two big investigations in just one day and covering voting rights the way it needs to be done—that we hope you'll agree is worth supporting.

payment methods

ONE MORE QUICK THING:

Or at least we hope. It’s fall fundraising time, and we’re trying to raise $250,000 to help fund Mother Jones’ journalism during a shorter than normal three-week push.

If you’re reading this, a fundraising pitch at the bottom of an article, you must find our team’s reporting valuable and we hope you’ll consider supporting it with a donation of any amount right now if you can.

It’s really that simple. But if you’d like to read a bit more, our membership lead, Brian Hiatt, has a post for you highlighting some of our newsroom's impressive, impactful work of late—including two big investigations in just one day and covering voting rights the way it needs to be done—that we hope you’ll agree is worth supporting.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate