Make Gun Companies Pay Blood Money

[jpak]

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

GUN manufacturers have gone to great lengths to avoid any moral responsibility or legal accountability for the social costs of gun violence — the deaths and injuries of innocent victims, families torn apart, public resources spent on gun-related crime and medical expenses incurred.
Related in Opinion

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.

<more>

[friendly_iconoclast]

1. Only if those that *don't* cause death or injury get a tax rebate.

[friendly_iconoclast]

2. When will you start taxing Ford, Honda, Toyota, etc. for car crashes?

[Robb]

23. When Ford experiences a sales surge after every crash.

Have you noticed the gun manufacturers have banner sales quarters in the months following every widely-publicized shooting? As they drum up the "they're gonna take yer guns" fools into full lather and open wallets?

These corporations are not run by idiots. They know these shootings are good for business, that these "misuses" of their product help their bottom line immeasurably more than a thousand pinup calendars.

[gejohnston]

24. can't lay that on the manufacturers

So you are saying Feinstein is a mole for the manufactures?

[premium]

25. And this has what to do with Jpak's thread? nt.

[Robb]

27. Blood money. It's not complicated.

Corporations are amoral. Their decisions are based on profits. There is zero business-based reason for manufacturers to do anything to curb the illegal use of firearms -- because in the current climate, every illegal use of firearms of any notoriety is met with the possibility of slightly increased levels of "gun control" as well as a hugely overblown level of "they're going to take your guns" hysteria.

It also makes as much business sense for the gun manufacturers to attempt to quell that hype as it would for McDonalds to put arsenic in the sodas. That hype is predictable, easy to bolster, and profitable.

The vehicle by which amoral corporations are moved to do things which are not in their own self-interest is called "regulation." It is much cheaper to dump toxic waste in a lake than to dispose of it responsibly. To keep people from dumping toxic waste, we fine them for doing it.

[premium]

28. And once again,

what does your post have to do with the proposal on this thread?

[Robb]

29. The proposed tax is the regulation.

[premium]

30. Ok,

So why should manufacturers have to pay a an xtra tax on a properly built, legal product for someone using it in an unsafe or illegal manner?
Should manufacturers of other products have to pay the same tax on properly built, legal products just because some idiot might use it in an unsafe or illegal manner?
Like auto manufacturers? Knife manufacturers? Tool manufacturers?

[CokeMachine]

31. Looks like he went back to the group that always agrees with him!

Gotta be tough being wrong all (most) of the time (on this subject). Check out the edits in this OP.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022928786

He is one of the chosen ones here so rules don't apply.

[Robb]

36. Because they profit most when it's used illegally.

Do any of the other industries you mentioned have their highest revenues when their product is used illegally?

[gejohnston]

37. the drug trade.

[premium]

38. And just how is that their fault?

So what if they profit most when some idiot uses their product illegally? They're not responsible for the illegal or unsafe use of their properly built and perfectly legal product, the user is, that's on the user of their product.
But I'm guessing that because it's firearms, you're in favor, but any other product, you're not.

Really lame dude, really lame.

[Robb]

39. You think manufacturers can do nothing?

You think there's nothing a gun manufacturer could do, nothing in the world, that could affect the likelihood of their product being used illegally?

[premium]

40. Once again, why is the manufacturer responsible for the unsafe

or illegal use of their legal product?
You have yet to answer that question.

On edit: yes, there are some things they could do, but that still doesn't make them responsible for the unsafe or illegal use of their legal product.

[Robb]

41. Because the unsafe, illegal use of their legal product generates their best sales.

Their business model has come to depend upon that unsafe, illegal use of their legal product.

As I've explained, these corporations benefit the most when their products are used illegally. They sell a perfectly legal product that's easy to misuse, and they've taken no steps to mitigate that misuse because they've got zero incentive to do so -- because it would cut into their profits.

They become responsible when they profit from that misuse to such an extent it's clear that, if not intentionally encouraged on their part, the act of omission in discouraging becomes too great to ignore.

Let's move it away from guns, because I know it's difficult to be objective. To widgets!

Imagine Corporation X makes a widget that is perfectly legal, and has two functions: Function 1 and Function 2. Function 1 is legal and everyone agrees it makes society better, Function 2 is illegal and everyone agrees it makes it worse.

But every time Function 2 is performed, an additional 30% profit is added to the bottom line of Corporation X's balance sheet. Corporation X will not take any voluntary steps to discourage Function 2, because it increases sales; quite the contrary, a pure business model would practically require encouraging Function 2, to the extent allowed by law.

But since we know Function 2 makes society worse, we can encourage Corporation X to take its own steps to help mitigate Function 2 by imposing fees that penalize it every time Function 2 is performed.

Corporation X then has a new calculus to consider: can it affect the occurrence of Function 2 by changing its products slightly? And, more importantly, will the cost of those changes be less than the fees imposed by simply continuing business as usual?

This is how we get things like clean air standards, MPG, less toxic waste being dumped in the yard, and employees taking valuable time out of their day to wash hands or learn safety. None of those things improve a corporation's bottom line until regulation makes it so; that's really all this is.

[premium]

42. Their business model has come to depend upon that unsafe, illegal use of their legal product.

Bullcrap.

Name me one other manufacturer that has to pay this tax due to someone using their legally manufactured product in an unsafe or illegal manner.

Auto manufacturers?
Knife manufacturers?
Tool manufacturers?
Pesticide manufacturers?

Face it, your argument is weak sauce, if it were so great, then a law would have already been passed.
Any such law in the Congress pending or otherwise?

[Robb]

44. Bullcrap? You've noted yourself the reactionary nature of gun buyers and gun buying.

Gun and ammunition sales go up after they are used in unsafe, illegal manners.

Can you name one other manufacturer for whom this is true?

Do automakers sell more cars after big car crashes?
Do knife manufacturers sell more knives after stabbings?
Do tool manufacturers sell more tools after industrial accidents?
And do pesticide makers sell more rat poison after someone is intentionally poisoned?

Face it, your argument is weak sauce, if it were so great, then a law would have already been passed.

I'm going to give you a moment to think about whether you really want to hang your hat on that particular line of reasoning.

[premium]

48. Yeah, and?

Just because people have a reactionary response to the congress threatening more gun laws by going on a buying spree, that's the manufacturers fault?

I'll ask again,

Name me one other manufacturer that has to pay this tax due to someone using their legally manufactured product in an unsafe or illegal manner.

Auto manufacturers?
Knife manufacturers?
Tool manufacturers?
Pesticide manufacturers?

[Robb]

49. Well, yeah. The manufacturers do their best to fan those flames.

If we can agree that the NRA represents the interests, at least in part, of the gun manufacturers: they make certain every piece of gun legislation out there is framed as an all-out assault on liberty and justice. You bet it's their fault.

Why should they get a free ride?

[premium]

51. They do huh.

It seems to me that it's the congress who should pay that tax, they're the ones who cause the reactionary buying sprees by gun owners by threatening to ban this and that, as evidenced by Sen. Feinstein's ill advised AWB and mag. limit bills, maybe your comments should be directed at her, Bloomberg, MAIG, VPC, Brady Org., etc., etc.

And I wouldn't know about the NRA, I don't go to their website, nor do I receive any of their literature.
But I'll take your word that they are supported partially by the firearms manufacturers.

That fact is that you and Jpak want to impose at sin tax on a product that you personally don't like even though they have no control over their legally built and legally distributed product once it leaves the factory, you can't even name any other manufacturer that has to pay that sin tax for a legal product they build and distribute for sale to the public.

[Robb]

52. You want to tax Congress?

Well that's certainly reasonable.

[premium]

53. I'm saying that as a tongue in cheek comment.

Of course I don't want to, it would probably be unconstitutional, and I don't see congresscritters ever giving up their hard earned corporate perks and taxpayer funded paychecks.
I'm just trying to make a point that blaming any manufacturer by trying to impose a sin tax for the unsafe or illegal use of a legal product is ridiculous at best.

[friendly_iconoclast]

45. Instead of trying to control unsafe and illegal use, you want to 'punish the sinners'...

...i.e., those selling the things you don't like, regardless of of whether or not they're the ones doing
the unsafe and illegal acts..

Yours really is a faith based movement, isn't it?

[petronius]

54. You are skipping right over the critical question of responsibility: in every

one of your examples, the harm or cost is created directly by the action or inaction of Corporation X and/or the proper (Function 1) use of the widget, not by the inappropriate (Function 2) action of a responsible second party. That's not the case with the misuse of firearms.

Acme Widget Corporation should be held responsible to the extent that their actions or inactions directly encourage or abet Widget Function 2. Merely making a superior widget (applicable to Widget Function 1) does not rise to that level, and thus it's unreasonable to transfer responsibility for Widget Function 2 to Acme Widgets, or to 'Function 1' widget users.

And while you may find it distasteful that Acme Widgets profits enormously in the aftermath of Event(Widget Function 2), the fact that panicky widget buyers decide to shovel money into Acme's coffers does nothing to affect the balance of responsibility...

[BainsBane]

90. Because they do everything to make sure criminals retain access to guns

by opposing extended background checks, by selling to illegal distributors and publicly saying they don't give a flying fuck.

Don't you get tired of carrying the water for a multi-billion dollar corporate industry? Amazing how the only people on this site so concerned with unfettered corporate profits are pro-gun folk.

[premium]

91. Don't you get tired of being wrong 99% of the time about firearms? nt.

[Starboard Tack]

55. Easy. Cars are designed and marketed as a mode of transportation.

Guns are designed to kill and are marketed by fear mongers.

[Jenoch]

56. Many guns are designed

strictly for target shooting. Do those guns get a pass?

[Starboard Tack]

58. Possibly.

[Jenoch]

64. I know it was hard for you to

respond with even a 'possibly' but the US Olympic teams have rifles and pistols designed specifically for competition. I don't know if Great Britain fields shooting teams or not.

[Starboard Tack]

66. Wasn't hard at all.

I love competition shooting and if the guns are designed specifically for that purpose and not easily adaptable for more deadly use, then I don't see why they shouldn't be exempted from such a tax.
I don't know what Great Britain has to do with this.

[Jenoch]

69. You said guns are designed to kill.

I merely pointed out that not all guns are designed to kill. I mentioned Great Britain because I thought it might help your frame of reference.

[Starboard Tack]

70. OK, but let's be honest about this.

99.9% of firearms are made for killing. Then there are flare guns, starting pistols and competition guns. I hate to generalize, but we all know what I meant.
My frame of reference is global, btw.

[petronius]

71. I think that's exactly backward, and here's why:

Let's stipulate that firearms in general were developed for warfare, with the express purpose of killing enemies. Let's stipulate that every scrap of firearm technology was originally intended for the sole and specific purpose of killing humans. Let's stipulate that every single firearm in existence today has 100% of its ancestral roots in a tool that was conceived, designed, and intended for no purpose other than the killing of humans. That's what you mean, right? (I'm not sure that's really all historically accurate, but for the sake of argument lets say it is.)

But, does it follow from that premise that "99.9% of firearms are made for killing"? Of course not. 99.9+% of firearms today are made, marketed, and purchased for purposes totally unrelated to killing (humans) - they're produced and purchased for things like target shooting, competition, hunting, and self-defense (which is not actually about killing at all). The history is irrelevant, what matters is the current application - legitimate uses versus illegitimate. The proposal in the OP is flawed because it attempts to make legitimate users of the item responsible for the criminal or negligent acts of other parties.

So if we're really being honest, there is actually no rational basis to treat guns any differently than any other object that can cause harm through misuse. IOW, this whole line of 'guns are only for killing' is pure sophistry - I understand the rhetorical purpose, but the reasoning is flawed...

[Starboard Tack]

72. I don't know how you see it backwards.

First, you insert the qualifier of "humans". I never suggested that all firearms (or 99.9%) are made to kill humans. Shotguns and hunting rifles, along with target/competition guns, starting pistols and flare guns are not. But I never mentioned humans, just killing.
Now, let's not be disingenuous about the rest. Self-defense is not a type of gun, but those purportedly marketed for such a purpose are designed to kill humans, some more efficiently than others.
AR-15s and the like are not hunting rifles, though they may be used by so-called hunters, to their shame. Handguns are killing tools, we all know it, so enough pussyfooting around. Nobody buys or carries a handgun unless they are prepared to kill with it.
There are no other objects that fall into the category of "made to kill", unless you want to get into bombs and other military hardware.
Let's keep the conversation honest. That way we might make some progress.

[gejohnston]

75. AR-15s and the like are not hunting rifles

Would you say that about bolt actions 70 Years ago? I find it ironic that ARs, which are not military weapons and not used by any military, are not hunting rifles even when in proper caliber and five round magazine required in Florida and Wyoming.
Yet, my wife's CAR 98 would be even though it was a military issue weapon. It was issued in 1937, but still.
BTW, the Taliban and Syrian rebels use bolt actions like the Enfield and the Mosin–Nagant today. In open fields, they have the advantage of greater range, accuracy, and more powerful round. than someone with any assault rifle or select fire carbine.

[petronius]

78. It's about the killing (or harming) of humans because that's the context

of this thread - the proposal in the OP is not about compensating Bambi's family, right?

Why you have it backwards is that you are reversing the frequencies of the various uses (and purposes of manufacture and purchase) of firearms: the 99.9% goes with the legitimate purposes of competition, hunting, target shooting, and self-defense*, and the far smaller fraction goes to the improper uses of killing/harming humans. Guns certainly can kill - accidentally or on purpose - but that's not what they're mostly made for these days (and if they were, why are so many of them unsuccessful?).

The vast majority of firearms are not made for killing, they are made for all those other innocent and reasonable purposes. (With "made", by the way, I refer to the act of production, the event that brings a new firearm into existence.) But it seems that some discussants prefer to ignore all those other things guns are made for as incidental, and to pretend that all guns are really just there to kill (they just mostly haven't gotten around to it yet, for some reason). I do understand the debate-tactic utility of that position, but it's not accurate.

So, bottom line, the vast majority of firearms are not produced (made), intended, purchased, or used for wrongful killing. And the vast majority of users or producers who are not using/making them for those improper purposes can not reasonably be held responsible for the deliberate acts of those who behave improperly.

I agree, an honest conversation would be nice. But that entails the abandonment of such rhetorical foolery as "most/99.9%/all guns are made for killing." They simply aren't...


* Even self-defense is not really about killing, it's about staying alive. So I will argue that even a gun made/purchased exclusively for self-defense is not made "to kill." But I grant that a valid argument can be made the other way (kind of like the purpose of a PFD is "to float" even though the real purpose is "to stay alive'). However, even if we say that self-defense uses are in the 'to kill' category it really doesn't change the balance.

[Starboard Tack]

97. Gotta love the way you keep redifining to suit your argument.

I'll stick by my 99% (the 99.9% was yours) are designed and manufactured for the purpose of killing.
You can try whittling away at that all day long, but it won't change the facts.
I'm not arguing for Bambi and I have no issue with hunting for food, but the guns used are still designed to kill. The OP is about taxing gun makers. It's not my OP, but I can see some merit there. I would probably only tax the manufacturers of semi-automatics, which are designed and marketed as the best killing "tools".

How a gun is used, be it for target practice, competition shooting or to hammer in a nail, has nothing to do with it's design and it's function, as intended by the manufacturer.

Self-defense is about staying alive, you are right. Using a gun for self-defense is about being prepared to kill in order to stay alive. I'm not condemning that, but let's be honest about it. If I use a gun, as it was designed and intended to be used, in self defense, I am probably going to kill someone or something.
You can't exclude handguns from the equation, just because they are euphemistically described as PSDs or SD tools. They are the predominant weapon used in homicides and suicides in the US.

The manufactured purpose of a PFD is to save life. It accomplishes that by floating on water.
The manufactured purpose of a handgun is to kill efficiently. That is accomplished by aiming and squeezing the trigger.
If you show, brandish, wave or point your gun at someone, you have taken the first step toward killing them. If you are not committed at that point, then you will probably lose, especially if your opponent calls your bluff. I'm sure you are aware of this, so let's not bullshit ourselves into thinking a gun on our person is just about SD. It's about being prepared to kill and if you leave home wearing a gun and you're not in that frame of mind, then you're living very dangerously.

[petronius]

107. I will boil it down: 99% (sorry) of firearms are not manufactured with

the intent that they will ever be used to kill/harm*, 99% of guns are not purchased with the intent to use them to kill/harm, 99% of guns are not used to kill/harm - so how is it correct to say that 99% of guns are "made to kill"? Answer: it is not, but I understand the rhetorical purpose of that framing.

It is true that guns can be used to kill, and that the historical basis of the technology is rooted in violence (good or bad), but an honest conversation would be based on an honest appraisal of the current civilian firearms - in that context, "made to kill" is irrelevant and inaccurate.

But of course, this is all a tangent to the OP, which was about charging a tax on legitimate users to cover the social costs of criminal and negligent misuses of firearms. In that discussion, a critical question is whether it is reasonable to transfer responsibility (costs) of these misuses from the responsible party onto other, innocent, users and manufacturers (no, it's not). "Guns are made to kill" - even if it was an accurate statement - is not an answer to that question...

* Referring of course to humans; killing in the course hunting is neither here nor there.

[Starboard Tack]

108. There you go again, redefining.

First of all, forget the hunting thing. All hunting guns are designed, made, owned and used to kill. That's 100%. Though some folk like to keep a shotgun around for home defense. Something I've done myself from time to time and would probably do again.

Now, let's address your new statement

99% (sorry) of firearms are not manufactured with the intent that they will ever be used to kill/harm*, 99% of guns are not purchased with the intent to use them to kill/harm, 99% of guns are not used to kill/harm - so how is it correct to say that 99% of guns are "made to kill"?

Manufacturers don't determine the intent of the end user. You can buy a car and drive it off a cliff. It wasn't designed for driving off cliffs, but you can do it.
You can buy a gun and keep it in a drawer and never fire it. That doesn't alter what it was designed for or what it was manufactured to accomplish. There's nothing wrong with keeping that gun for emergencies, just as there's nothing wrong with keeping a fire extinguisher handy. If you live in a high crime or high fire hazard area, then these tools make sense. That doesn't change what they were designed and made to do, which is to kill (guns) and to put out fires (extinguisher).

I'm sure there are probably some who don't think about killing people, or the possibility of killing people when they buy a gun. Those people are fooling themselves, because that's exactly what they should be thinking. Otherwise, there's no reason to buy one, unless you're a collector.

The OP is not about a tax on users. but on manufacturers. I think the tangent is yours.

[petronius]

109. "Manufacturers don't determine the intent of the end user." Yep, that's pretty much

exactly what I'm saying. Guns are designed to propel a projectile, and the purpose is up to the end user. But, 99% of guns are not manufactured with the intent to kill, purchased with the intent to kill, used to kill. (And I'm sorry, but hunting related killing is irrelevant here, no matter how much you want to try and drag it in with cries of "redefining.&quot

So, since neither you nor the manufacturer gets to determine the intent, that must be derived from the current context, and in the current context it's false to say that "99% of guns are made to kill." But like I said, I understand the appeal of that rhetorical framing.

And again, the critical question from the topic of the OP is still that of shifting responsibility - which the "99%" claim fails to address anyway...

[Starboard Tack]

111. I'm not dragging hunting in at all. It is irrelevant to the discussion.

Handguns are not designed to kill animals, with the exception of pistols, specifically designed as humane killers, a weapon I have had the misfortune to use on more than one occasion.
That said, virtual all handguns are designed to KILL HUMANS, quickly and efficiently. So are AR-15s and many other automatic and semi-automatic weapons. You can try to redefine till the cows come home, but you can't change the reality of it. When used for their designed purpose, they kill. Your intended purpose may be different. For some, I'm convinced that a gun has become little more than a designer accessory, like a fancy wristwatch or aviator glasses. Yuppy consumerism gone crazy.
Some Italian sports cars are designed to go in excess of 200 mph. Doesn't mean the owner intends to drive that fast.
Nobody is suggesting that handguns must be used to kill people, but that doesn't change what they were designed for.
The responsibility should be shared by those who manufacture toxic items like tobacco and certain types of guns. Predatory manufacturers should not be able to peddle their wares with complete impunity. They have a responsibility to society and some sort of tax is a small price to pay for peddling their products to addicts and those who live in fear.

[gejohnston]

112. while most are not some are built specifically for hunting

http://www.chuckhawks.com/handgun_hunting.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handgun_hunting
http://www.fieldandstream.com/photos/gallery/gear/hunting-gear/2010/06/25-best-handguns-hunting-ever-made

That said however, most handguns can be used to hunt small game. I used to use a revolver for small game.

[Starboard Tack]

115. Very true.

[petronius]

113. Tobacco causes its harm when used for its proper, legal, and pretty-much the only

purpose for which it is made, marketed and purchased. Guns cause their social harm when used for improper and illegal purposes - not the purposes for which the vast majority of them are made, marketed, and purchased. The comparison is not valid...

[rdharma]

76. "self-defense (which is not actually about killing at all)"

You jest! If a firearm is suitable for "self-defense", it was designed for KILLING!

[gejohnston]

77. so you are saying

pepper spray isn't suitable for self defense?

[rdharma]

79. Is pepper spray a firearm?

[gejohnston]

81. of course not

but you wrote

If a firearm is suitable for "self-defense", it was designed for KILLING!

using your logic, if pepper spray is suitable for self defense, it was designed for killing
since it is not designed for killing, is it suitable for self defense? Or was there a point?

[CokeMachine]

82. You tell us. You seem to be in the know.

Never mind you never answer questions.

Bad Bait
Bad Bait
What'cha gonna do when they come for you
Bad Bait
Bad Bait.

Just seemed apropiate.

Have a good night.

[oneshooter]

110. No however it is restricted in some states.

New York
Massachusetts
Michigan
Wisconsin
California
Washington DC

http://www.pepperspraylaws.com/

[shedevil69taz]

104. Some people find

Stun guns and pepper spray are suitable for themselves in the area of self defense. Neither of those are designed to kill.

[Jenoch]

73. How often have

flare guns, starting pistols and competition guns been used to kill or injure people? Words have meaning. If your 'frame of reference is global', does that mean you are a U.S. citizen?

[rdharma]

80. Errr merrr gerrd!

[Jenoch]

84. Is that a typical

response of someone from a foreign land, maybe India? (I don't know. I am only supposing from past posts and your user name. I am always interested in discourse with someone from anorher country.)

[Starboard Tack]

99. Maybe you should travel more

You'll find it a lot easier to meet and talk to people from other countries. They'll just love you.

[Jenoch]

100. I'd like to travel more.

I've been to most of the states west of the Mississippi and about half of those east of the Mississippi. I've also been to Canada, Mexico, Europe, former Soviet Republics and parts of the Caribbean. I don't know how much I was loved. I have not yet been to Great Britain or India.

[premium]

101. I'd like to go back to Vietnam

and see how much it's changed since I was last there in 68-69.

[Jenoch]

102. I asked my cousin

if he would like to go back (combat engineer 70 - 71) and his response was a firm negative. He also wouldn't go on a fishing trip with us because we were camping in tents. He doesn't have PTSD, he just wants to sleep in a bed.

[premium]

103. I can sympathize with him.

A few of my buddies have been back in recent years and they've told me that the country is very much different now and that the people love Americans now.
It's on my bucket list before I pass on.

[Starboard Tack]

105. That's very good. I hope you learned something.

Be sure to let us know what you think of GB and India.

[Jenoch]

106. I'm not one of the typical Americans

who can't find their own state, or other states for that matter, on a map. I have a German friend who told us we weren't typical Americans because we seem to know more about world affairs than the Americans he comes into contact with. One of my best friends as a kid had a British mother. She didn't even get her American citizenship until both of her parents died.

[premium]

57. But yet,

they're used quite frequently in an unsafe or illegal fashion, should the auto companies have to pay a sin tax because someone might use their legal product in an unsafe or illegal way?

[Starboard Tack]

59. No, it's about when used as intended.

Anything can be used as a weapon, but only a few things are designed specifically as weapons and most guns are designed specifically to kill, period.

[premium]

60. So you think that firearms manufacturers should

have to pay a sin tax because their product is used in an illegal or unsafe manner, even though their product is legal to sell?
Not sure if I'm understanding you here.

[Starboard Tack]

61. Yes, of course.

It has nothing to do with the legality of the product. Alcohol and tobacco are good examples. Even though, unlike guns, they are not designed to kill, they contribute to many deaths when used as intended (marketed).
I like to smoke, drink and shoot guns (not at the same time), but I don't try to kid myself that any of those pastimes are not fraught with danger. Even though I do each in moderation, it doesn't totally eliminate the risks involved to my health and the health of others.
I see those who carry a gun everywhere they go in the same light as chain smokers and winos.

[premium]

62. Well, we're going to have to disagree on this. nt.

[Starboard Tack]

63. No shit. LOL

[premium]

65. Too damn hot today,

Sat. is going to be brutal, 114-117 degrees. Glad my A/C was serviced at the beginning of May.

[oneshooter]

67. Yet automobiles manage to kill/injure a large percent of the population

even though they are NOT built or designed to do so.

[Starboard Tack]

68. Let's do the numbers

How many cars are in use at any given moment? 50 million? 100 million?
How many guns are being fired at any given moment? 10,000? 50,000?
You do the math.
But if you want to restrict car use, we can debate that.

[oneshooter]

92. My point is that autos,

are killing people daily, and are not designed to do so. If firearms producers are hit with this "sin tax" then auto makers should also be taxed, as their product, not intended to harm, are used to kill at the same rate as firearms.

[Starboard Tack]

93. Now that's really convoluted.

Autos are not designed to kill and are rarely used intentionally to kill. They happen to kill occasionally, when misused.
Guns are designed to kill and usually succeed when used as designed and instructed.

We're not talking about target practice or Nascar.

I have no idea where you get the idea that cars and guns are used to kill at the same rate. How many people do you think go out and buy a car with the intent of killing someone or some animal. "Come on Darryl, let's buy us a pickup so we can get us some roadkill!"
You think the manufacturer should pay when people misuse their products? Really?

[oneshooter]

98. Isn't that the same argument that jpak is making?

[sir pball]

119. I think a better analogy is Diageo, Beam, Pernod Ricard, etc

The big beverage houses...should they pay an extra "blood tax" for the predictable, provably massive suffering and death their legal products cause when used as intended? Cars do serve a utilitarian purpose...alcohol does nothing of the sort.

[premium]

3. Ummm, the firearms manufacturers aren't causing the harm.

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.

They manufacture a perfectly legal product for sale to the general public, the harm is caused by misuse of said legal product which the companies have no control over.

Where you fail is that when some one is hurt by a vaccine, it's because the manufacturer of the vaccine screwed up and produced a bad batch or it's administered improperly which would be the fault of the dr./nurse.

A firearms manufacturer can be sued for damages IF the product is defective, that's already a law.

But, what the hell, try to get this proposal passed the congress, they could use a good laugh.

[jpak]

9. ummm....their products are designed and manufactured to kill

and when it comes to massacre guns - to kill people.

Make them pay.

"Freedom" isn't free - and all that.

yup

[premium]

10. No, their product is designed to propel an object out of a barrel,

how it's used is up to the person.
So, are you going to hold the auto companies responsible for the misuse of their vehicles?
How about the knife manufacturers?
How about tool manufacturers?

[jpak]

11. Air Soft guns do the same thing - but they are not designed to kill, unlike extender devices.

yup

[premium]

12. So if your idea is so good,

then contact your congresscritter and pitch the idea to them, I'm sure it will be given the attention it's due.

[jpak]

14. It took decades to make gay marriage the law of the land

I am patient.

God, Gays and Guns don't go around here no more...

yup

[premium]

15. God, Gays and Guns don't go around here no more...

And yet IL is now for all intents and purposes a Shall Issue state, the only states that are tightening their gun laws are states that are traditionally pro gun control, meanwhile a majority of states are either leaving their gun laws as is or loosening them.
So pardon me if I don't take you seriously at all.
But, if you would, keep us informed how well your proposal is going in the Congress.

[friendly_iconoclast]

46. Hah! You'll never hear mention of *that*!

[Straw Man]

114. What are "extender devices"?

Is this another lame penis meme?

[petronius]

4. A significant difference between guns and other items treated this way, such as

vaccines and cigarettes, is that the harm being caused by the vaccine or cigarette occurs when the product is used properly, and the harm from the gun occurs when the product is used improperly. In other words, with guns, unlike the other industries, there is a deliberate act of some sort - criminality or negligence - between the harm and the manufacturer. The responsibility should stop at that actor, and not be 'spread out' to all the consumers of the product who played no role in the harmful act.

The better analogy I think, is the idea of a private copying levy, in which all purchasers of recordable media pay a charge to compensate content producers for (il)legal copying, regardless of whether the individual purchaser uses the media for that purpose. I oppose those levies for the same reason I'd oppose the tax proposed in the OP - it's unfair to spread costs of a deliberate act onto those consumers not responsible for the act...

[CokeMachine]

5. ^^ This ^^ nt

[jpak]

13. What does "parabellum" mean?

Extender devices that use parabellum ammo or standard NATO rounds were designed to kill..

humans

Make them pay.

yup

[petronius]

19. It's not a question of euphemisms, nor does it matter what market a specific

round or firearm was developed for (military or otherwise), nor whether a bullet or gun is advertised as having great 'stopping power'*, 'terminal performance'*, lethality*, or anything else. All that matters is that any harm that would be compensated for from a fund like the one proposed would be caused by the criminal or negligent act of an individual. That responsible person stands between manufacturers and other consumers of firearms-related products - and the responsibility (monetary and otherwise) stops there.

* And of course, these characteristics do have their place in hunting, police work, and self defense; a firearm used properly (even to kill) in one of those arenas would not be the sort of harm the proposal in the OP is designed to address...

[jpak]

116. Gun nutz claim all rifles are "assault rifles" because they were derived from military arms

now apparently, they are not.

Cognitive dissonance.

yup

[Straw Man]

117. Substantiate, please.

Gun nutz claim all rifles are "assault rifles" because they were derived from military arms

Could you point to where such a claim has been made? Thanks.

[jpak]

120. Your post is what we call "The Gungeon Dodge"

Gunners make claim after claim after claim - and then deny it.

Happens all the time.

yup

[oneshooter]

121. Seems to me that you are the one that made the claim.

Can you prove it. I sincerely doubt you either can or will.

[Straw Man]

122. I beg your pardon?

Your post is what we call "The Gungeon Dodge"

Gunners make claim after claim after claim - and then deny it.

Yet you fail to point out even one such claim. Are we supposed to take your word for it? I'd rather take a check from Bernie Madoff.

You have no credibility. None.

[jpak]

123. Cognitive Dissonance Reigns SUPREME in the Gungeon

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117291415

[Straw Man]

125. Do you have a point?

Cognitive Dissonance Reigns SUPREME in the Gungeon

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117291415

Is there a particular post in your link that addresses the contention that you have made? I don't see one. Perhaps you could point it out.

Then we'll talk about cognitive dissonance.

[Lizzie Poppet]

124. I've never seen that claim before reading your post.

Just sayin'...

[rl6214]

21. WTF does "extender devices" mean?

Is that another made up term of yours?

[premium]

22. Oh, I think we all know what that means,

it's the old penis reference, just in a new format.

[CokeMachine]

32. Maybe he is insecure with his ........ nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

47. Gun control advocacy is the last refuge of Freudian theory.

[CokeMachine]

50. That's all they have.

[Eleanors38]

26. "Ah, you just want to harden your salami" -- French Connection.

[DonP]

6. You get right on that - it's good to have a hobby

I'm sure you'll be every bit as as successful at getting that passed as you and all your friends have been on repealing CCW.

[premium]

7. Or SYG. nt.

[ileus]

8. people misuse firearms...the product isn't defective.

There are three types of firearms.

Target
Hunting
Self Defense

They're safe devices either designed for sporting or life saving purposes, any other use is the operator's responsibility not the manufacture, designer, distributor, or sellers.

[jimmy the one]

16. stop using euphemisms about guns

1 jpak: ....their products are designed and manufactured to kill and when it comes to massacre guns - to kill people.
premium: Response to jpak No, their product is designed to propel an object out of a barrel,
2 petronius: the harm being caused by the vaccine or cigarette occurs when the product is used properly, and the harm from the gun occurs when the product is used improperly
3 Ileus: They're safe devices either designed for sporting or life saving purposes, any other use is the operator's responsibility not the manufacture, designer, distributor, or sellers.

I probably should give him more time to reply on his own, but I repost Green Storm Cloud's fine OP here, tho I doubt he'll agree much with jpak's OP.

GSCloud: Fellow gunners, stop using euphemisms to talk about guns and self-defense
When we us soft language to talk about guns, concealed carry, self-defense, and similar topics, we concede important territory to the gun-banners. By using soft words and phrases to soft-petal them we are agreeing with the gun-banners that there is something shameful about them, not fit for polite discussion.
.. A gun is a gun. Yes, it is a tool. Just as a screwdriver is designed to drive screws of different types, but can be used for many other tasks, a gun, although also capable of being used for many other tasks, has a basic task it is intended for. Their basic function is to kill, easily and from a distance.
We need to embrace and own that truth. Killing isn't always evil. Showing the ability to kill is usually enough to make an attacker turn tail and run. A gun gives an elderly woman power to put a young male thug to flight, or to the hospital, or the morgue. All other weapons would require here to match her strength to that of the young male thug.
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=123863

[ileus]

18. I can only speak for my firearms.

Of course I speak from the operators end of my SD firearms.

Would the government actually allow us access to devices only designed to kill other citizens?

A firearm isn't a tool, it's a safety device designed to preserve and protect the lives of me and my family. I would never own a device designed to cause harm to innocents.

[bossy22]

17. what about hard alcohol producers?

Lets make Coors brewing company pay for drunk driver accidents. If gun companies can be liable for misuse of their product, so should alcohol producers. Hell, so should any company that makes any product that can be misused.

[CokeMachine]

33. OK -- Coors and hard alcohol?

I wouldn't call Coors hard alcohol. I drink lots of Coors Light but stay away from the hard stuff -- Budweiser is hard alcohol. Clydesdale piss that it is!!

[gejohnston]

35. Rocky Mountain piss water.

Miller Light and Ice House are my US beers. Although a pitcher of Orion would be great right now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_Breweries

[CokeMachine]

43. I drink for quantity not quality!!

[rdharma]

83. Sure you do! That's why you've got what you've got! nt

[CokeMachine]

86. Oh it's you again -- the master baiter.

Bad Bait
Bad Bait
What'cha gonna do when they come for you
Bad Bait
Bad Bait.

I know you'll alert but what the hell.

Note to jury: He just jumped into a cordial conversation with his usual flame bait. I don't believe I was even engaged in a conversation with him.

[BainsBane]

88. Doesn't take much to set you off, does it?

[rl6214]

20. Only after you make car companies start paying as well.

[CokeMachine]

34. Give him a break -- It's JPAK after all!!

YUP Yup YUP Yup YUP Yup YUP Yup YUP Yup YUP Yup YUP Yup YUP Yup YUP Yup YUP Yup YUP Yup YUP Yup YUP Yup YUP Yup

Getting tired of CP (copy/paste).

At least he still posts his inane stuff!! Love you JPAK.

[BainsBane]

89. Where have you been for the past 100 years?

They've paid millions in lawsuits. That is why cars are so much safer today.

[premium]

94. True, but that was for defective autos

that injured or killed people, OTOH, what OP wants to do is impose a sin tax on the manufacturers just because someone might use their legally built firearm that meets all Federal firearm safety regulations, legally sold, in an unsafe or illegal manner.
Name me one other manufacturer that has to pay a sin tax like that?

Do auto companies?
How about knife companies?
Tool companies?
Pesticide companies?

No, they don't, so why should firearm manufacturers have to?
I can guess why, because firearms are ickky.

[dookers]

74. I remember when they tried to sue gunmakers in the nineties.

It ended up making the gun lobby much stronger and gave them immunity from lawsuits.

[BainsBane]

87. They are now exempt from lawsuit

More ways in which the gun lobby erodes everyone else's rights in order to sell more guns. And then so-called "rights" people show they don't give a wit about anyone's rights unless it involves acquiring more and more guns.

[premium]

95. Can't you get anything right?

If they produce a firearm that's defective and people are injured or killed, then they most certainly can be sued,
what you are thinking of is the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act passed in 2008, it protects the manufacturers from what were called SLAPP suits where a city/state would attempt to sue the manufacturers into bankruptcy because of the illegal or unsafe misuse of a firearm, not because it was defective.

But supporters pointed to the language of the bill and argued that it clearly only protects law-abiding and ethical gun dealers."It does not interfere with traditional remedies for damages resulting from defects in the design or manufacture of the products," explained Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) co-sponsor of the House version of the proposal. "The bill provides no shelter to those who would sell firearms illegally. It does not affect suits against anyone who has violated other state or federal laws."

Boucher introduced the bill because of what he believes are the nefarious motives of the gun control groups, which often fund lawsuits against gun dealers and makers.

"The lawsuits against the firearms industry are nothing more," Boucher argued, "than thinly-veiled attempts to circumvent the legislative process and achieve gun control through litigation."

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) complained about "people who want to make gun manufacturers liable for what others do with their firearms.

Please do try to get it right.

See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/house-passes-lawsuit-protection-gun-industry#sthash.VptYjD7P.dpuf
- See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/house-passes-lawsuit-protection-gun-industry#sthash.VptYjD7P.dpuf

[premium]

96. Ummmm, no it didn't

It gave them immunity from SLAPP lawsuits, whose only purpose was to bankrupt a firearms manufacturer.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/house-passes-lawsuit-protection-gun-industry#sthash.VptYjD7P.dpuf

[SoutherDem]

118. The authors of the Op-Ed should have called for what they really want, to ban all guns.

Lets say they succeed in adding a 30% tax to all gun purchases, now the $500 rifle is $650. And yes the consumer will pay the tax.
What have we proven? Money will be set aside to pay victims because someone purchased a gun legally and used it illegally.
Does the money go only to those who were killed by the legal gun used in an illegal manner?
What about the illegally obtained guns? How do we tax those since they will still be in circulation? Will deaths by those weapons be compensated?
Will it slow gun sales? Maybe but as for me I will now have to save another month or two but I will still buy the gun.
Why do I say that? Because I am now paying around $85 for the box of ammo I use to pick up for about $22, and yes I am actually buying more than before because one day (because of things like this tax suggestion) it may be $100 a box or not available at all.
But, it may actually increase gun sales. Yes, some may no longer be able to own a gun, but many will now have even more fear that guns my one day be taxed at 100 or 200% or outlawed all together. Once again for me it may slow a purchase but not stop it.
I have said many times I am ok with a real universal background check law which doesn't have a bunch of hidden loop-holes, to insure only those who do not have a criminal or mental record can purchase a gun. But taxing me to purchase a legal item, which use and ownership is a constitutional right, that I will use in a safe and legal manner is not the answer.
Yes, like it or not there is the 2nd amendment which has been upheld by the SCOTUS more than once.

Like I said the authors really are wanting to eliminate guns all together. Maybe someone should write an op-ed suggesting a tax on gun manufactures to aid the poor who can't afford a gun to own at least one gun for protection. Let's see how that flies?

[ileus]

126. We should thank these companies for providing affordable life saving devices.

[gopiscrap]

127. I agree