Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Off-Topic Discussion > Debating with the enemy


Pro-gun article

Debating with the enemy


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-25-2013, 05:21 PM   #226
Pro Bowl
 
Giantone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,342
Re: Pro-gun article

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/op...oney.html?_r=2&

Make Gun Companies Pay Blood Money
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.

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
__________________
....DISCLAIMER: All of my posts/threads are my expressed typed opinion and the reader is not to assume these comments are absolute fact, law, or truth unless otherwise stated in said post/thread.
Giantone is offline  

Advertisements
Old 06-25-2013, 06:11 PM   #227
Living Legend
 
Ruhskins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 16,651
Re: Pro-gun article

I honestly feel that if people wouldn't get such a hard on for guns or if it weren't a hobby, there would not be a debate on guns. Unfortunately, both sides are unwilling to have a civilized debate about this issue. On the one hand, it is ridiculously to say that they should get rid of all the guns. But on the other had, I find it stupid for someone to say that we need AK-47s to defend your freedom.
__________________
R.I.P. #21

New words created on The Warpath:
Rewalsr - Somretimes - Fualt - Jersesy - Itiot - Composetory
Afeard - Storgn - Empliment - Gaissn - Saftys - Minnisota
Faviort - Hatter - Phsyched - Foof - Heloing - Brutual
Stroried - Agianst

"Give an opinion and move on. Your life doesn't depend on winning the internet." -FRPLG
Ruhskins is offline  
Old 06-25-2013, 10:14 PM   #228
Quietly Dominating the East
 
Hog1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Naples, Florida
Posts: 9,610
Re: Pro-gun article

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giantone View Post
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/op...oney.html?_r=2&

Make Gun Companies Pay Blood Money
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.

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 Death By Texting
http://post.jagran.com/texting-while...ads-1372071476
Yahoo!
Cell Phone Accident Statistics and Texting While Driving Facts
Distracted Driving | Facts and Stats | Texting and Driving

Will you also advocate the same for Cell Phones....Cars....Pedestrians?
The studies are...Endless and Conclusive....Cell Phones kill
I wonder how Chevy....IPHONE....will feel about paying "Blood Money"?
__________________
Goodbye Sean..........Vaya Con Dios
thankyou Joe.......
“God made certain people to play football. He was one of them.” – Joe Gibbs

Last edited by Hog1; 06-25-2013 at 10:33 PM.
Hog1 is offline  
Old 08-14-2013, 03:09 PM   #229
New HC, new hope!
 
RedskinRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: I'm in LA, trick!
Posts: 8,702
Re: Pro-gun article

What cops think:


PoliceOne's Gun Control Survey: 11 key lessons from officers' perspectives

1.) Virtually all respondents (95 percent) say that a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would not reduce violent crime.

2.) The majority of respondents — 71 percent — say a federal ban on the manufacture and sale of some semi-automatics would have no effect on reducing violent crime. However, more than 20 percent say any ban would actually have a negative effect on reducing violent crime.

3.) About 85 percent of officers say the passage of the White House’s currently proposed legislation would have a zero or negative effect on their safety, with just over 10 percent saying it would have a moderate or significantly positive effect.

4.) Seventy percent of respondents say they have a favorable or very favorable opinion of some law enforcement leaders’ public statements that they would not enforce more restrictive gun laws in their jurisdictions. Similarly, more than 61 percent said they would refuse to enforce such laws if they themselves were Chief or Sheriff.

5.) More than 28 percent of officers say having more permissive concealed carry policies for civilians would help most in preventing large scale shootings in public, followed by more aggressive institutionalization for mentally ill persons (about 19 percent) and more armed guards/paid security personnel (about 15 percent).

6.) The overwhelming majority (almost 90 percent) of officers believe that casualties would be decreased if armed citizens were present at the onset of an active-shooter incident.

7.) More than 80 percent of respondents support arming school teachers and administrators who willingly volunteer to train with firearms and carry one in the course of the job.

8.) More than four in five respondents (81 percent) say that gun-buyback programs are ineffective in reducing gun violence.

9.) More than half of respondents feel that increased punishment for obviously illegal gun sales could have a positive impact on reducing gun violence.

10.) When asked whether citizens should be required to complete a safety training class before being allowed to buy a gun, about 43 percent of officers say it should not be required. About 42 percent say it should be required for all weapons, with the remainder favoring training classes for certain weapons.

11.) While some officers say gun violence in the United States stems from violent movies and video games (14 percent), early release and short sentencing for violent offenders (14 percent) and poor identification/treatments of mentally-ill individuals (10 percent), the majority (38 percent) blame a decline in parenting and family values.


But what would they know, eh?
RedskinRat is offline  
Old 08-14-2013, 03:57 PM   #230
Playmaker
 
over the mountain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: close to the edge
Posts: 3,813
Re: Pro-gun article

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giantone View Post
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/op...oney.html?_r=2&

Make Gun Companies Pay Blood Money
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.

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
Im surprised they didnt parallel the Victims of Violent Crime Compensation Fund which provides funds for medical bills of victims of violent crimes who can not afford the medical expenses. The fund is funded by "wages" earned in jail by inmates convicted of violent crimes. So if an inmate makes 40 cents an hour cleaning dishes, 30 cents of that goes to the fund.

In CA I got 20k for facial reconstruction surgery. The ER took about 10k and the plastic surgeon agreed to cap his fee at the balance of the fund limit (20k). I was a broke law student at that time and did not have health insurance. (under obamacare I could have remained on my parents plan). If this fund was not around .... I couldnt imagine what the left side of my face would look like.

at least for me, I am a big fan of that fund and who ever thought of the idea. the comparison is not apples to apples though as technically a gun manufacturer hasnt done anything illegal or wrong . . i guess the argument would be that they, in manufacturing the gun as an intended killing weapon, contributed to the act of killing.
over the mountain is offline  
Old 08-28-2013, 08:20 AM   #231
Gamebreaker
 
Chico23231's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Richmond, VA
Age: 38
Posts: 13,209
Re: Pro-gun article

CBS 6 EXCLUSIVE: Police take guns from armed Obama protester | WTVR.com

These are some of the looneys the Tea Party attracts. Who in their right mind perches up on the overpass with an assault rifle?
__________________
“Nobody’s going to be handed a job; not my standpoint, and I know Jay feels that way and I know Bruce feels the same way. You have to earn it. That’s what the NFL is about. Like I said, I don’t have any ties with any of the players. I didn’t draft them, besides the ones I signed in free agency, so I’m coming in here saying, ‘Prove it to me. Prove to me that you deserve to be on the field,’ and that’s the way it has to be in the NFL.”- McC
Chico23231 is offline  
Old 08-28-2013, 11:03 AM   #232
New HC, new hope!
 
RedskinRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: I'm in LA, trick!
Posts: 8,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by firstdown View Post
This is old and stupid. I guess we should attach this too alcohol sales, cars, knifes, and anything where there are victims of a product killing another person.
Yes, let's remove any personal responsibility from poor decision making.
RedskinRat is offline  
Old 08-28-2013, 08:42 PM   #233
Playmaker
 
HailGreen28's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,056
Re: Pro-gun article

Another post by an anti-gun nut with so many logical failures:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giantone View Post
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/op...oney.html?_r=2&

Make Gun Companies Pay Blood Money
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.
We have an entire industry of car insurance set up to cover "the social costs" of the automobile industry. Imagine if instead of the great sums of money we all pay insurance, taxes were raised on cars to cover the same amount. What do you think would happen to car sales? Yeah, same thing this proposal's backers want for gun sales. Except for those playing or actually dumb of course.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giantone View Post
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.
Guns are bought for legitimate purposes, like marksmanship, hunting, and self defense. Why not financially go after the people who actually use guns to commit crimes? Why not keep them "accountable"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giantone View Post
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.
Epic logical fail here. This proposal doesn't go after those who cause injury. By taxing all gun sales, it shifts the costs to the vast majority of gun owners, who use guns and DON'T cause injury.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giantone View Post
Now, gun manufacturers and sellers are mostly protected from lawsuits by federal law.
Lol. The same law that protects every other industry, where unless the company is negligent in the product it makes (defects, deceptive advertising, etc.) whackos can't try penalizing the industry out of business.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giantone View Post
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.
Another epic fail in logic. In the case of bad vaccines, the company that made the defective drug is at fault. In the case where someone misuses a working gun, that individual is at fault. The same way that if someone tampered with or deliberately misused (forcefed, misprescribed, etc) a medicine, THEY would be at fault, NOT the drug company.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giantone View Post
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
Because medicine is a trickier thing, with people's different reactions to drugs, unforeseen combinations of circumstances, disease evolution, etc. And there's always the uncertain balance in public interest between getting a needed cure out quickly vs. safely. None of which apply to guns, therefore the above mention of the vaccine policy does not follow.

The above proposal is just another poorly thought out rationalization, to try taxing the sale of guns by law abiding people out of existence. Typical.

Overthemountain had a better proposal. Go after the people who actually cause harm. Going back to the vaccine analogy, which is flawed but just to contrast, vaccine companies pay for harm they actually inflict themselves. Contrasting cars is kinda flawed too, there's nothing constitutional about owning one, but look at how with insurance you cause harm your rates go up. Giantone's proposal would shift that cost away from those who actually cause harm to EVERYBODY.

It's hard to take anti-gun groups seriously about stopping gun violence, when their target is all gun owners rather than the people who actually cause harm.

Last edited by HailGreen28; 08-28-2013 at 08:50 PM.
HailGreen28 is offline  
Old 08-29-2013, 04:14 AM   #234
Pro Bowl
 
Giantone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,342
Re: Pro-gun article

Bill Clinton ......8/28/2013


"“A great democracy does not make it harder to vote than to buy an assault weapon,”

Read more: Bill Clinton calls for action in March on Washington speech - Jennifer Epstein - POLITICO.com
__________________
....DISCLAIMER: All of my posts/threads are my expressed typed opinion and the reader is not to assume these comments are absolute fact, law, or truth unless otherwise stated in said post/thread.
Giantone is offline  
Old 08-29-2013, 04:21 AM   #235
Pro Bowl
 
Giantone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,342
Re: Pro-gun article

Richmond rally supports more checks for gun purchases - Richmond Times-Dispatch: Central Virginia



Posted: Friday, August 23, 2013 12:00 am | Updated: 12:54 am, Sun Aug 25, 2013.
Richmond rally supports more checks for gun purchases BY MARK BOWES Richmond Times-Dispatch Richmond Times-Dispatch
The father of a young boy fatally shot in the Newtown massacre last year stopped in Richmond on Thursday as part of a “No More Names” national bus tour to drum up support for universal background checks for gun purchases.
“It’s something that shouldn’t have happened,” said Neil Heslin, whose 6-year-old son, Jesse Lewis, was one of 20 students and six adults fatally shot at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. “It’s something that can’t happen again. It’s something that’s got to be changed, and we can help prevent that.”
Speaking to a sparse crowd — perhaps 15 local supporters — Heslin said one of the simplest things that could be done “to prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands” is for Congress to pass legislation that would expand background checks for all firearm transactions, including private sales.
“Background checks are not something that’s treading on anybody’s Second Amendment rights,” he added. “It has nothing to do with taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.
Echoing a repeated complaint from New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, whose Mayors Against Illegal Guns organization is sponsoring the 25-state national bus tour, Heslin said many guns that show up on the streets of New York and are used in crimes come from Virginia and North Carolina. “Background checks would help cut down on that,” he said.
In a news release distributed at a rally in Byrd Park, Mayors Against Illegal Guns — citing ATF data — said the number of guns sold by Virginia firearms dealers in 2009 that were trafficked to other states and recovered at crime scenes was 130 percent more than the national average and 422 percent more than in states that require background checks for private handgun sales. The number of firearms was not provided.
Eleven people, nine from the Richmond area, stood behind Heslin as a show of support and held signs that read, “Guns kill our children,” “Demand Action to End gun violence,” and “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.”
__________________
....DISCLAIMER: All of my posts/threads are my expressed typed opinion and the reader is not to assume these comments are absolute fact, law, or truth unless otherwise stated in said post/thread.
Giantone is offline  
Old 08-29-2013, 12:33 PM   #236
Playmaker
 
HailGreen28's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,056
Re: Pro-gun article

Quote:
Originally Posted by Giantone View Post
Bill Clinton ......8/28/2013


"“A great democracy does not make it harder to vote than to buy an assault weapon,”
Wow, it's not often Bill Clinton says something really stupid.

Last I checked, you need more to get an "assault rifle", than step up and state your name and address.
HailGreen28 is offline  
Old 08-29-2013, 05:15 PM   #237
Gamebreaker
 
Chico23231's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Richmond, VA
Age: 38
Posts: 13,209
Re: Pro-gun article

I don't understand the hate for the background checks at gun shows? Why not want to ensure criminals are not getting guns there and be consistent with law around the state at retails stores? Is it just contrite at this point? U think with all the mass shootings in the state and across the country we'd look to close the loophole.
__________________
“Nobody’s going to be handed a job; not my standpoint, and I know Jay feels that way and I know Bruce feels the same way. You have to earn it. That’s what the NFL is about. Like I said, I don’t have any ties with any of the players. I didn’t draft them, besides the ones I signed in free agency, so I’m coming in here saying, ‘Prove it to me. Prove to me that you deserve to be on the field,’ and that’s the way it has to be in the NFL.”- McC
Chico23231 is offline  
Old 08-30-2013, 12:00 PM   #238
Playmaker
 
mlmpetert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Richmond
Posts: 3,261
Re: Pro-gun article

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chico23231 View Post
I don't understand the hate for the background checks at gun shows? Why not want to ensure criminals are not getting guns there and be consistent with law around the state at retails stores? Is it just contrite at this point? U think with all the mass shootings in the state and across the country we'd look to close the loophole.

The "gun show loophole" is a misnomer. The vast majority of sales at gun shows are by gun dealers (FFLs) and therefore require a background check. Only guns sold or transferred between private individuals do not require background checks, regardless if at a gun show or at a police station.

A big problem with requiring private individuals to complete background checks when selling a gun is that it costs a lot. A background check for a private sale averages around $40. You can only hire a professional to do it. You have to go to the professional's place of business to do it, and some people don't live in areas with easy access to a FFL or have cars.

And like most restrictions, background checks primarily hurt poor people. A lot of shotguns are only worth $100 and your entry level handgun costs $150-$200. So your talking about a fee that is between 20-40% of a guns value. Even with a nice $500 dollar glock you are still looking an 8% fee.

What if you had to preform a "registration check" before selling a car to a private party that cost around 20-40% of car's value? What if you also had to travel 100 miles to complete the transaction with a car dealer? What if it was your granddad selling you your first car for a one dollar bill? Or what if you are a poor person who isn't married and you want to put the car in your baby mamma's name before your government deploys you to the Middle East? And what if 99.9% of all car accidents were from dealer sales, or illegally bought or stolen cars, yet private party sales were hit the hardest with fees and restrictions?
__________________
mlmpetert is offline  
Old 08-30-2013, 12:24 PM   #239
New HC, new hope!
 
RedskinRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: I'm in LA, trick!
Posts: 8,702
Spot on! Don't believe the anti-gun hype!

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
RedskinRat is offline  
Old 08-30-2013, 06:14 PM   #240
Pro Bowl
 
Giantone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 5,342
Re: Pro-gun article

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chico23231 View Post
I don't understand the hate for the background checks at gun shows? Why not want to ensure criminals are not getting guns there and be consistent with law around the state at retails stores? Is it just contrite at this point? U think with all the mass shootings in the state and across the country we'd look to close the loophole.
Study finds vast online marketplace for guns without background checks - Washington Post
Study finds vast online marketplace for guns without background checks


By Philip Rucker,August 05, 2013
The marketplace for firearms on the Internet, where buyers are not required to undergo background checks, is so vast that advocates for stricter regulations now consider online sales a greater threat than the gun-show loophole.
<A href="http://www.thirdway.org/publications/719" data-xslt="_http">A new study by Third Way , a center-left think tank with close ties to the Obama administration, found that thousands of guns, including so-called assault weapons, are for sale online and that many prospective buyers were shopping online specifically to avoid background checks.
The study focused on Armslist.com — a popular classified site similar to Craigslist.org that facilitates private sales of firearms and ammunition based on location — and analyzed listings in 10 states where senators voted against a background-check compromise this spring.
__________________
....DISCLAIMER: All of my posts/threads are my expressed typed opinion and the reader is not to assume these comments are absolute fact, law, or truth unless otherwise stated in said post/thread.
Giantone is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.40649 seconds with 10 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25