"NEW ORLEANS - To say that Louisiana is not very keen on gun control is to put it mildly. This is a state that recently legalised concealed weapons, and whose governor calls duck-hunting season his favourite time of year. It is a difficult place to be if you are a man like Sandy Krasnoff, a former police officer who heads a New Orleans anti-crime group. Mr Krasnoff has lobbied for measures that would require gun owners to buy locks and bolt up their weapons. But the state legislature has ignored him, and now he hopes that gun opponents will have more success in another forum: the courtroom.

This month Marc Morial, the mayor of New Orleans, announced that his city--which held the country's record for murders a few years ago--has filed a lawsuit against the gun making industry. It is the first of its kind. Unlike Chicago's suit, which declares that guns are a public nuisance, New Orleans is suing under product-liability law. The suit is aimed at 15 gun makers, three trade organisations and several local pawnshops. It claims that gun makers have not equipped their products with adequate safety devices, and have thus allowed guns to be acquired, and fired, by criminals and children. It seeks damages for the costs of gun-related medical care and police protection.

This marks a new frontier in gun control, and imitates the sort of lawsuits used against the tobacco industry. But is a gun--even a smoking gun--comparable to a cigarette? Gun makers say no. "We are not the tobacco industry," says Jack Adkins, the operations director of the American Shooting Sports Council. "Our products, when used safely, properly and responsibly, pose no risk." Mr Adkins thinks that the New Orleans suit makes unrealistic demands, expecting manufacturers to use unproven technology. He points to the so-called "smart gun", currently under development, which goes off only if its user wears a special bracelet or ring. It is too early to mass-market the weapon, Mr Adkins says; even police departments have been reluctant to test it.

But Dennis Henigan, legal director of the Centre to Prevent Handgun Violence, replies that gun manufacturers already have access to low-tech safety devices, such as combination locks. He accuses them of being "quite hostile to safety concerns". And he says a well-publicised lawsuit could increase the demand for more regulation. Mr Krasnoff agrees: "I think the pressure's going to stay on."

And that, in his view, is the trouble with this lawsuit: it is a veiled attempt to change gun laws by circumventing legislators. And it is likely to be expensive. The gun industry generates about $2 billion a year in sales, he says, and "does not have deep pockets". The cost of a legal defence could be passed on to dealers and consumers and, if too many cities file similar suits, the industry could shut down altogether.

But, for all the gloomy talk, some gun dealers in New Orleans and nearby say they are unconcerned by the lawsuit. "I don't see it going that far because it's kind of ridiculous," says Bert Hair, who sells guns at his hardware shop in a small suburban strip mall just outside Gretna, across the Mississippi from New Orleans. "Eighteen-wheelers and automobiles have killed more people than any gun ever will."

Brian Vincent, a former schoolteacher who owns a gun shop in the centre of Gretna and teaches a gun-safety class, says the argument that guns are patently unsafe will not stand up in court. "I really can't think of a single gun being made today that I would characterise as outright dangerous," he says. That in itself is an improvement over guns made 30 years ago. It also suggests that, for all the fanfare, the New Orleans lawsuit is not as novel as it seems. Many gun-design changes, Mr Vincent says, have come about not by decree but by the threat of liability suits brought by individuals." (The Economist, November 21, 1998)