Make the Gun Companies Pay Blood Money

[Harry Dresden]

Well it isn't my proposal. I wouldn't be that generous.

I would outright ban firearms, and only allow NON-Lethal weapons for home protection, which will get the job done and not kill household members.

But the problem with the gun manufacturers is that they are reckless in their marketting.

Most of us would say Nancy Lanza buying 12 guns because she expects the collapse of civilziation to be nuts.

The gun manufacturers see her as a prime market, and that's the problem.

With that statement anything you say about gun control = gun banning, and thus makes you someone to ignore when it comes to gun policy in general.

And once again all you are doing is giving the advantage to the person robbing the house at the cost of those defending it. Criminals dont follow laws.

Most of the people killed in the US by guns are not killed by criminals. They are killed by family members, use of guns for suicide, or accidental deaths due to the mishandling of guns by people so stupid they should not be allowed near a gun. Like about 90% of the 'Conservatives' on this board.

when are you and yours going to address Gun Violence in the inner cities Rocks?.....i have asked you this 3-4 times.....i get ignored.....little Black and Brown kids not important enough for you?....

 

[legaleagle_45]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/opinion/make-gun-companies-pay-blood-money.html?_r=0

But there is a simple and direct way to make them accountable for the harm their products cause. For every gun sold, those who manufacture or import it should pay a tax. The money should then be used to create a compensation fund for innocent victims of gun violence.

This proposal is based on a fundamentally conservative principle — that those who cause injury should be made to “internalize” the cost of their activity by paying for it. Now, gun manufacturers and sellers are mostly protected from lawsuits by federal law.

As it happens, a model for this approach already exists. Under the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, those injured by vaccines are eligible for compensation from a fund financed by an excise tax on the sale of every dose of vaccine. In creating this no-fault system in the 1980s, Congress sought to provide care for those injured by vaccines while protecting manufacturers from undue litigation.

Actually, it is not based upon a fundamentally conservative principle as firearms do not cause harm when properly and legally employed. This is unlike tobacco when the product will cause harm when used legally and in the manner intended. It is only when a firearm is employed negligently or illegally that a firearm causes harm. In those instances, conservative principles require that the party responsible for the damage pay for the damage.

An analogous example would be to require car manufacturers to create a fund to pay for damages associated with drunk driving or negligent driving, instead of placing the responsibility upon the driver. Once we do that, we can require ice cream mfg to pay for damages associated with obesity..

 

[Spoonman]

Guns make it easier to kill people.

Next.

obviously being liberal makes it easier to be stupid.

 

[KissMy]

Guns make it easier to kill people.

Next.

SO do knives, hemlock, role, cars, rocks, spears, illegal drugs, home made explosives, etc...

Then everyone who makes those should have to pay blood money too.
Blood money for everyone!!!

Make single parent households that breed criminals pay blood money.

Dumbass democrats subsidize them. We need income splitting for maried couples in order to end the marriage penalty tax.

 

[whitehall]

Make the car companies responsible for every felony committed in a vehicle and make the knife and hammer companies responsible for assaults with sharp and blunt objects. While you are at it make the weather bureau responsible for hurricanes.

 

[Spoonman]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/opinion/make-gun-companies-pay-blood-money.html?_r=0

The reason for the vaccine fund is that no manufacturer was going to make vaccines anymore without some protection from lawsuits that were based on know adverse reactions caused by introducing live/attenuated/dead versions of pathonegenic materials.

If the vaccines were found to be made incorrectly, or the effect was from some manufacturing error, the fund doesnt cover that. The fund covers the vaccine working as intended, but because the state mandates vaccination via school requirements, it covers any losses.

The object of your proposal, is to again make guns too expensive for people to own. The purpose of the vaccine fund was never to end vaccines, but to keep them under manufacture.

Well it isn't my proposal. I wouldn't be that generous.

I would outright ban firearms, and only allow NON-Lethal weapons for home protection, which will get the job done and not kill household members.

But the problem with the gun manufacturers is that they are reckless in their marketting.

Most of us would say Nancy Lanza buying 12 guns because she expects the collapse of civilziation to be nuts.

The gun manufacturers see her as a prime market, and that's the problem.

Your team has already tried that and been shut down cold

 

[Harry Dresden]

With that statement anything you say about gun control = gun banning, and thus makes you someone to ignore when it comes to gun policy in general.

And once again all you are doing is giving the advantage to the person robbing the house at the cost of those defending it. Criminals dont follow laws.

Most of the people killed in the US by guns are not killed by criminals. They are killed by family members, use of guns for suicide, or accidental deaths due to the mishandling of guns by people so stupid they should not be allowed near a gun. Like about 90% of the 'Conservatives' on this board.

Most shootings in cities are Criminal on Criminal, and do not involve "innocent parties" so your first statement is wrong from the get go.

Suicide is technically illegal, so a suicide is indeed a criminal on criminal crime.

oh but many of them do.....kids walking home from school get shot dead or wounded or have bullets hitting around them because some stupid ass is shooting across a park at a rival gang guy......but thats not important to the Anti-Gun people....not enough White kids involved....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Guns don't kill people, stupid.

People kill people.

Next...

I remember hearing that cliche for the first time around in the 1970s.

It was when Mayor Moscone (of San Francisco) and Harvey Milk were shot in their offices by Dan White. Dan White used a .38-caliber Smith and Wesson revolver.

Just think, if White had had an AR15 he could have killed off about 20-30 other people in city hall instead of just two. That would have just given you a big hard-on, now wouldn't it?

if there were little white kids involved you would have had a boner......and we would see another one of your anti-gun threads......

 

[martybegan]

Most of the people killed in the US by guns are not killed by criminals. They are killed by family members, use of guns for suicide, or accidental deaths due to the mishandling of guns by people so stupid they should not be allowed near a gun. Like about 90% of the 'Conservatives' on this board.

Most shootings in cities are Criminal on Criminal, and do not involve "innocent parties" so your first statement is wrong from the get go.

Suicide is technically illegal, so a suicide is indeed a criminal on criminal crime.

oh but many of them do.....kids walking home from school get shot dead or wounded or have bullets hitting around them because some stupid ass is shooting across a park at a rival gang guy......but thats not important to the Anti-Gun people....not enough White kids involved....

Those are the ones you HEAR about. I have a relative who is a prosectutor and 80-90% of all crime is one person with a huge case file doing something to someone with a slightly smaller case file.

 

[Spoonman]

People kill people with guns. And in the US, the number is over 32,000 a year. And the number of gun deaths will soon exceed the number of auto deaths. But that is just fine with the fruitloops here.

So, since there are more auto deaths than gun deaths, how about we put the same restrictions on auto manufacturers?

We do. We require seat belts and air bags. We crash test their vehicles. We have laws that hold them accountable if they make bombs like the Pinto's.

Yet the gun manufactures are not held to any standard at all. In fact there are laws enacted by Congress that does not allow the CDC to look at how much havoc guns cause in our society.

apples and oranges. guns have a safety. guns are engineered and tested so they function safely. we restrict where guns can be used, carried. most states have strick laws surrounding ownership of a fire arm. no car company is held liable when someone deliberately misuses a vehicle. lose the spin in your argument

 

[Spoonman]

Not a bad idea and it worked against tobacco companies.

I've actually been against settlements against tobacco companies because I believe the smoker should take responsibility for their own stupidity. But, thousands of people are hurt or killed by guns through no fault of their own. Guns are a product that has only one use - to kill or maim or wound.

Interesting idea.

how did it work against tobacco companies? they have won every case against them on appeal

 

[legaleagle_45]

I would outright ban firearms, and only allow NON-Lethal weapons for home protection, which will get the job done and not kill household members.

First you need to repeal the 2nd Amend. This is how it is done. You convince 2/3rds of the US Senate and 2/3rds of the US House to propose to the states a Constitutional Amendment repealing the 2nd . Then you have 38 states ratify that proposal and voila, the 2nd Amend disappears. Quite simple really and explained clearly in Article V of the Constitution.

You should contact Harry Reid at once and suggest that he adopt this strategy. It is my understanding that the US Senate has some time on its hands, having decided to deep six all significant gun control legislation this term... thus they can turn their undivided attention to this idea.

I am sure Harry Reid will be thrilled with the idea and marvel at you political savvy. In fact, he may choose to make it the centerpiece of the Democratic Platform for the midterm elections:

TOGETHER WE CAN START REPEALING THE BILL OF RIGHTS--- YES WE CAN!!!

Here is where you can contact Harry:

The Honorable Harry Reid
522 Hart Senate Office Bldg
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: 202-224-3542
Fax: 202-224-7327

GOOD LUCK!!

 

[jasonnfree]

Guns make it easier to kill people.

Next.

Then lets go after the auto companies too. Cars can be used as weapons. In link below, the woman couldn't find a gun to shoot her husband for not voting, so she went and got a car instead. (She wanted him to vote against obama).

Police: Woman runs over husband for not voting - Boston.com

 

[Little-Acorn]

But there is a simple and direct way to make them accountable for the harm their products cause. For every gun sold, those who manufacture or import it should pay a tax. The money should then be used to create a compensation fund for innocent victims of gun violence.

Going to make car companies pay into a fund to compensate victims of car crashes too?

This proposal is based on a fundamentally conservative principle — that those who cause injury should be made to “internalize” the cost of their activity by paying for it.

Actually, it's based on a fundamentally liberal principle: Blaming the tool instead of the user of the tool, so you can keep the user's vote, make sure the problem is never cured, and fool people into thinking you're doing something useful.

Not much point in reading the rest of the drivel in the OP.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Guns make it easier to kill people.

Next.

obviously being liberal makes it easier to be stupid.

You have it backward.

Being stupid makes it easier to be liberal.

 

[blackhawk]

So the manufacturer should be punished for the actions of the user? Then should we fine or tax automakers when a reckless or drunk driver kills or injuries someone?

 

[mudwhistle]

They make bows and arrows out of wood.

Anyone who's planted a tree should pay blood money.

Not mine. Its 100% carbon fiber.

Anyone who produces carbon needs to pay blood money.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Guns make it easier to kill people.

Next.

So do baseball bats, knives, draino, radiator coolant, swimming pools, bath tubs, etc.


Next.

 

[mudwhistle]

Manufacturers of the following should pay into a fund for fat people.

Makers of Gummi bears and worms.
Makers of potato chips.
Makers of all sugary cereals...

More to come....

I like this game.

Sarah Lee and Pepperidge Farm need to pay bigtime.

 

[auditor0007]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/opinion/make-gun-companies-pay-blood-money.html?_r=0

That same concept is being applied in Obamacare with a tax on tanning salons that cause cancer.

So why not tax the group that have caused $850 billion a year in health care costs?

Using the same formula that a direct tax on their revenue should be used to help the 4 million people without health insurance that want and need it!

Tax the lawyers 10% as you suggest the gun makers and as Obamacare is doing now with tanning salons.

$200 billion a year in lawyers' gross revenue at 10% tax would pay a $5,000 a year premium for each and every one of the 4 million that want and need health insurance.

Then as the $850 billion a year in duplicate tests, referrals to specials decline so too would the tax % on lawyers decline.
...URL]

I have to cut you off here, because you are going into crazy talk now.

Frankly, I WANT my doctor taking precautions to make sure he isn't cutting on the wrong leg.

I'm not sure why you don't. (And that's assuming its your leg and not mine he's cutting on.)

There should be criminal penalties when a doctor cuts on the wrong leg, or cuts it off completely. I'm not suggesting jail time but the loss of the doctor's license ending his/her ability to practice medicine for five years. I guarantee there would be less mistakes of that nature.