Make the Gun Companies Pay Blood Money

[Harry Dresden]

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.

i could never figure out how that happens.....doesn't the Doc know his patient?...

 

[Claudette]

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.

Excuse me while I stand over here and LMFAO.

Tell you what. You use your non lethal weapon to protect your house.

Me? I'll use my shotgun.

Bet my house is better defended than yours and oh yeah. Anyone breaking into my house will be fucking dead.

Once law breakers know your an easy mark with your non lethal weapon they will be back.

My lawbreakers, not so much.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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.

Yes, you being an authoritarian shit isn't news.

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.

You having, at best, a TENUOUS grasp on reality is, also, not news.

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

Again, you have a TENUOUS grasp on reality.

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.

And your evidence that the gun manufacturers marketed to her is...?

 

[Antares]

Guns make it easier to kill people.

Next.

So do Cars and hammers and basball bats and and screw drivers and Airplanes and yada yada yada.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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.

Except that the tobacco companies lied about the effects of tobacco and if it caused cancer. They said it absolutely did not. And had their scientists provide false information to that effect.

This worked until Dr. Jeffrey Wigand, Brown and Williamson's former research director, came forward and told the truth.

So the tobacco companies need to pay out their evil asses.

Good point. As far as I know, no gun maker has ever tried to say their product is not meant to kill.

And, that IS the only reason guns are made and only reason guns are purchased.

OK, now YOU are lying!

 

[Shoey]

Guns make it easier to kill people.

Next.

The 2nd Amendment simply accommodates the means necessary for the use of deadly force if an individual's life is in imminent danger of threatened serious bodily harm by another person. Certainly the 2nd Amendment isn't a license to kill. Individuals reserve the fundamental Right to defend ourselves from imminent threats of bodily harm or possible death with deadly force if necessary but that is the limit of our inalienable Right of Self-Defense. We have numerous inalienable Rights including the Right of Person and the Right of Property and there are sensible procedures we can take associated to the guardianship of both.

Title 10 › Chapter X › Part 1047 › Section 1047.7

Use of deadly force.

(a) Deadly force means that force which a reasonable person would consider likely to cause death or serious bodily harm. Its use may be justified only under conditions of extreme necessity, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed. A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only when one or more of the following circumstances exists:

(1) Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

(2) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense against a person(s) in circumstances presenting an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm (e.g. sabotage of an occupied facility by explosives).

(3) Nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the theft, sabotage, or unauthorized control of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive device.

(4) Special nuclear material. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the theft, sabotage, or unauthorized control of special nuclear material from an area of a fixed site or from a shipment where Category II or greater quantities are known or reasonably believed to be present.

(5) Apprehension. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to apprehend or prevent the escape of a person reasonably believed to: (i) have committed an offense of the nature specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) 1 of this section; or (ii) be escaping by use of a weapon or explosive or who otherwise indicates that he or she poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the protective force officer or others unless apprehended without delay.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/10/1047.7

 

[legaleagle_45]

Good point. As far as I know, no gun maker has ever tried to say their product is not meant to kill.

Irrelevant, even if true (which it is not). Many things are meant to kill. You own a fly swatter? A can of Raid? Did you know that 40,000 people are killed annually from poisoning according to the CDC?

And, that IS the only reason guns are made and only reason guns are purchased.

Incorrect. Many firearms are specially designed to be employed in target shooting. The firearms employed by Olympic particiapnts are specially designed and manufactured for that exclusive purpose and as the object in the Olympics is not to kill the judges, you are wrong. Other firearms are specially made for non lethal purposes, such as starters pistols... sooo you are wrong.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

As long as this applies to the:

Car Industry (cars kill)
Pharma Industry (drugs kill)
Kitchenware Industry (knives kill)
Plumbing Industry (pipes kill)
Baseball Industry (baseball bats kill)
Power Tool industry (chainsaws and drills kill)
Handheld tool industry (wrenchs and hammers kill)
Karate (hands and feet kill)
Human live birth (humans give birth to other humans, which kill other humans on occasion)

 

[JoeB131]

[

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.

One more time.

Japan has banned handguns.

They had all of 11 gun homicides last year.

We had 11,000.

Banning guns CAN work.

 

[JoeB131]

Guns make it easier to kill people.

Next.

So do Cars and hammers and basball bats and and screw drivers and Airplanes and yada yada yada.

None of them are designed specifically for that purpose.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Excuse me while I stand over here and LMFAO.

Tell you what. You use your non lethal weapon to protect your house.

Me? I'll use my shotgun.

Bet my house is better defended than yours and oh yeah. Anyone breaking into my house will be fucking dead.

Once law breakers know your an easy mark with your non lethal weapon they will be back.

My lawbreakers, not so much.

I've known too many people who've buried family members who killed themselves with that gun they bought for protection.

Gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy.

And frankly, you guys spend too much time fantasizing about killing people. I think what Obama said about Clinging to Guns and Bibles was right on the money.

 

[legaleagle_45]

None of them are designed specifically for that purpose.

Lots of guns are not designed to kill people. A large portion of them are designed to kill tasty critters. So, if a gun manufacturer designs the Bunny Killer 2000 semi auto handgun it is ok since it is not designed to kill people... cool!

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

So, given your mind-bogglingly sound reasoning, auto makers should pay into a fund for innocent victims of auto accidents.. and knife makers.... and baseball bat makers... and rope makers...



How deliciously stupid.

 

[DiamondDave]

Guns make it easier to kill people.

Next.

So do Cars and hammers and basball bats and and screw drivers and Airplanes and yada yada yada.

None of them are designed specifically for that purpose.

The firearm is a tool.. .its purpose is to fire a projectile of a particular size, at a particular velocity, at a specific degree of accuracy, over a particular effective distance...

The MOTIVATION or the INTENT of a PERSON is to cause harm or kill... it is not the PURPOSE of the FIREARM

You sir, are a totalitarian idiot

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

[

Excuse me while I stand over here and LMFAO.

Tell you what. You use your non lethal weapon to protect your house.

Me? I'll use my shotgun.

Bet my house is better defended than yours and oh yeah. Anyone breaking into my house will be fucking dead.

Once law breakers know your an easy mark with your non lethal weapon they will be back.

My lawbreakers, not so much.

I've known too many people who've buried family members who killed themselves with that gun they bought for protection.

Gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy.

And frankly, you guys spend too much time fantasizing about killing people. I think what Obama said about Clinging to Guns and Bibles was right on the money.

Sounds like you knew some stupid people... but hey, why am I not surprised?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Guns make it easier to kill people.

Next.

So do Cars and hammers and basball bats and and screw drivers and Airplanes and yada yada yada.

None of them are designed specifically for that purpose.

Neither are guns.

They are designed for SELF-DEFENSE against evil persons.

No matter what you do, evil persons shall exist, in both society and government, hence the need for the Second Amendment.

 

[Missourian]

Don't forget alcohol.

Alcohol, sold for the sole purpose of intoxication...

Should be forced to pay for every dumb, illegal, self destructive, deadly activity undertaken by any user of their product!

Or...we could just correctly reason that this is an incredibly stupid idea, that people are responsible for their own actions, and move on...

 

[Crackerjaxon]

My, what a ridiculous proposal. Perhaps we can get the auto companies to pay my auto insurance premiums, too. The notion of personal responsibility is beyond the NYT. I don't know when it wandered off the reservation, but it needs to get back to responsible journalism.

 

[JoeB131]

Sounds like you knew some stupid people... but hey, why am I not surprised?

Do you really want to have intelligence tests for gun ownership? I'm game for that.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Neither are guns.

They are designed for SELF-DEFENSE against evil persons.

No matter what you do, evil persons shall exist, in both society and government, hence the need for the Second Amendment.

We had 32,000 gun deaths last year.

How many of them were "evil"?