A Negative Balance

The lawsuit against a gun manufacturer, presented yesterday by a group of parents of kids assassinated in the Sandy Hook school killings, is one single concrete action among a run of frustrations.

Two years after the tragedy, the possibilities that the massacre will have a positive impact in gun control at the federal lever, and in mental health programs, have vanished. The pain caused by the killing of 20 elementary students – along with six adults, – and the outrage that a youth with known mental problems used a war weapon, faded with the passage of time and the opposition of the National Rifle Association (NRA).

The wishes of a majority of Americans supporting strict background checks for gun purchasers were ignored in a Congress that, by law, — in an example of the NRA’s power — is not even allowed to study the impact of firearms.

Against this background, states and courts emerge as the new front lines in the battle to control firearms.

For example, there are precedents to the Sandy Hook parents’ complaint against Bushmaster — manufacturer of the AR-15 used by Adam Lanza. Bushmaster already settled out of court a lawsuit in the case of a famous sniper in 2002.

The question is why a war-designed weapon fell in the hands of Lanza, and what’s the responsibility of the manufacturer— also the vendor in this case.

The killing also challenged the mental system. Here, Sandy Hook didn’t make a difference. The biggest coverage in this area came from Obamacare.

At the same time, last November’s election left the hopes of getting some kind of gun control in the hands of the states’ initiative, as it happened in Washington.

From Sandy Hook until today, 60,000 people have been killed by firearms, as mass shootings have multiplied. At the same time, more Americans are more concerned about protecting the right to bear arms than in controlling them.

This is a negative balance that, tragically, will lead to more innocent deaths