This is a remarkably irresponsible action that shows that city administrations do not hold their own local criminal populations responsible for their crimes. Nor do these governments hold themselves responsible for their failure to protect citizens. Presumably, reduction in crime is not the desired outcome-only a lining of city pockets.

Such behavior points up the primary fallacy behind most anti-gun thought--that somehow a dumb chunk of metal can have blame or responsibility in and of itself with no regard for the human element. This fallacy is responsible for the refusal of the anti-gun people to consider the difference between law-abiding citizens who use guns legally and responsibly and the criminals who abuse them.

Even an outcome to the liking of the cities will be difficult to call much of a victory if it bankrupts U.S. manufacturers. Who then will sell guns to American police or train police armorers in the maintenance of firearms? How will law-abiding citizens avail themselves of defense weapons that have been proven effective against violent criminals?

Have any of these questions occurred to city attorneys? No cash payment by gun manufacturers will cut down one whit on the crime rate of any of these cities. Who wins, then? As usual, the lawyers.

Finger-pointing actions do nothing but erode the concepts of individual responsibility required to keep this society on an even keel.

Law-abiding gun owners have a long history of supplying this type of responsibility, despite the dishonest attempts of the anti-gun crowd to claim otherwise. The cities following this course may find they have shot themselves in the foot.

Pete Lessler, Colorado Springs