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 gun industry.”
In 1994, he said his company would only sell a high-capacity magazine to police officers.
“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 departure.
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?