Connecticut state Treasurer Shawn Wooden may have a point with his plan to divest from gun manufacturers about $30 million in state pension funds. Political controversy about guns is increasing the financial risks for the companies that make them.

Of course Wooden and his supporters are among those creating the controversy. Indeed, if they have their way, anyone harmed by criminal use of a gun will be able to obtain damages from the manufacturer in court, a policy that quickly will eliminate gun manufacturing in the United States, getting around the Second Amendment, which is the idea.

This attack on an industry for which Connecticut once was renowned is an attack on the constitutional right of civilians to own guns, even as formulating gun policy is not among the treasurer's statutory responsibilities.

Announcing the divestment the other day, Wooden said it was also meant to protest the failure of Congress to require background checks for gun sales. But the background-check issue is misleading, since federal law already requires background checks for sales by commercial dealers. Not covered are private sales and exchanges between individuals, and while they should be, the benefit of extending the law that way would be tiny compared to the importance ascribed to it.

After all, how is Connecticut's divesting from gun manufacturers going to induce Congress to legislate here? Congress is influenced on gun legislation not so much by gun manufacturers as by millions of gun owners who are politically active. That is, the infamous "gun lobby" is not manufacturers as much as ordinary people, just like the teacher lobby, except that, unlike the teacher lobby, the real gun lobby has no financial interest in government policy.

By some estimates there are more guns in civilian ownership in the country than there are civilians themselves, and thus there already are millions of guns in the hands of people who would contemplate using them criminally. Close the gaps in the background check law, but then how many people who contemplate criminal use of their guns are likely to obey it? Nobody set on murder or robbery cares much about the penalty for carrying a gun in one of those silly "gun-free" zones. "Gun-free" zones are no more effective than the "protective orders" courts issue to women so everybody can pretend that something has been done about their crazy husbands or boyfriends when, in fact, nobody will do anything that matters.

And does Wooden really think that the gun violence problem is a lack of background checks for private sales and exchanges? Does this explain the daily shootings in Bridgeport, New Haven, and Hartford? Or does the mayhem correlate mainly with the social disintegration in those cities and society generally? Having once been president of the Hartford City Council, Wooden should know better.

Most gun violence arises from the failure of drug criminalization and poverty policies, which long have induced many young men to enter the drug trade, as they lack education and skills to make a living otherwise.

Standing with Wooden as he announced his divestment initiative, Janet Rice of Connecticut Against Gun Violence declared: "We need to tackle gun violence from every angle." But no one in authority can even acknowledge anything relevant here. The treasurer's clamor was just for show.

Chris Powell is a columnist for the Journal Inquirer in Manchester.