She knows her stuff.

Too bad she forgets that the Senate is FULL of rural states.

I'll enjoy the fantasy that we COULD do this if we wanted to.

[www.huffpost.com]

Restricting guns by raising TAXES. Good luck.

As long as both Congress and the Supreme Court protect gun manufacturers from liability when their products are used for violence, I don't think a financial solution is going to work with guns although I love the idea. Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in 2005 that removes liability from manufacturers in most cases. Last week Remington, maker of the weapon used by the Sandy Hook shooter and subject of many lawsuits from those families, asked the Supreme Court to block a Connecticut decision to allow those lawsuits to move forward. That decision is going to be key.

Putting a big tax on guns (like the one on cigarettes) carries an acknowledgement that the product itself is harmful. We've got a ways to go before enough politicians will admit that. We'll see if SCOTUS helps us out.

Quote
Lemon Drop
As long as both Congress and the Supreme Court protect gun manufacturers from liability when their products are used for violence, I don't think a financial solution is going to work with guns although I love the idea. Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in 2005 that removes liability from manufacturers in most cases. Last week Remington, maker of the weapon used by the Sandy Hook shooter and subject of many lawsuits from those families, asked the Supreme Court to block a Connecticut decision to allow those lawsuits to move forward. That decision is going to be key.

Putting a big tax on guns (like the one on cigarettes) carries an acknowledgement that the product itself is harmful. We've got a ways to go before enough politicians will admit that. We'll see if SCOTUS helps us out.

So, are we going to hold car manufacturers liable for drunk driving deaths? How about the alcohol manufacturers? How about knife manufacturers for stabbing deaths or kitchen pan manufacturers for bludgeoning deaths? People can find all kinds of illegal uses for legal products. It is time that we hold individuals accountable for their actions and poor behavior. We have become a nation that accepts the shifting of blame.

I made a joke about it above, but IF it can ever be passed, it is a valid plan, similar to the cigarette tax plan Lemon Drop mentioned.

Quote
macphanatic
So, are we going to hold car manufacturers liable for drunk driving deaths? How about the alcohol manufacturers? How about knife manufacturers for stabbing deaths or kitchen pan manufacturers for bludgeoning deaths? People can find all kinds of illegal uses for legal products. It is time that we hold individuals accountable for their actions and poor behavior. We have become a nation that accepts the shifting of blame.

Your argument has rhetorical power, but lacks empirical justification.

It's a great theory for a world where almost 40,000 Americans don't die every year from gunshots.

---

rj
AKA
Vreemac, Moth of the Future

@macphanatic
The one flaw in your argument is that in contrast to your examples, only guns are expressly made for killing things.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2019 03:39PM by Steve G..

Quote
macphanatic

Quote
Lemon Drop
As long as both Congress and the Supreme Court protect gun manufacturers from liability when their products are used for violence, I don't think a financial solution is going to work with guns although I love the idea. Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in 2005 that removes liability from manufacturers in most cases. Last week Remington, maker of the weapon used by the Sandy Hook shooter and subject of many lawsuits from those families, asked the Supreme Court to block a Connecticut decision to allow those lawsuits to move forward. That decision is going to be key.

Putting a big tax on guns (like the one on cigarettes) carries an acknowledgement that the product itself is harmful. We've got a ways to go before enough politicians will admit that. We'll see if SCOTUS helps us out.

So, are we going to hold car manufacturers liable for drunk driving deaths? How about the alcohol manufacturers? How about knife manufacturers for stabbing deaths or kitchen pan manufacturers for bludgeoning deaths? People can find all kinds of illegal uses for legal products. It is time that we hold individuals accountable for their actions and poor behavior. We have become a nation that accepts the shifting of blame.

If only we managed guns as strictly as alcohol!! Alcohol is widely recognized as a threat to public health and safety, that's why it's a controlled substance. In a lot of states you have to be 21 to buy booze but an 18 year old can buy an AR-15 and all the ammo they want. Yeah that makes sense. You can't walk around with an open container of booze but open carry your assault rifle? Hell to the yeah!! And yes, sellers of alcohol can be held legally liable for providing irresponsible amounts of their product.

It's still a crime to murder somebody with a gun last time I checked. This isn't about removing individual responsibility in the slightest.

The lawsuit against Remington in the Newtown case is because of the way they marketed the weapon used by the Sandy Hook shooter. That marketing appears to be in violation of Connecticut law:

The suit is a high-stakes challenge to gun companies, which have rarely been held liable for crimes committed with their products, and could mark a new front in the battle over gun regulations and corporate accountabilities.

...

The court ruled, however, that Congress did not intend the PLCAA to preclude state law. Ultimately, the majority said, the plaintiffs should have the opportunity to prove that Remington violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) by marketing a military-style weapon to civilians.

Connecticut law, the court wrote in the majority opinion, "does not permit advertisements that promote or encourage violent, criminal behavior." While federal law does offer protection for gun manufacturers, the majority wrote, "Congress did not intend to immunize firearms suppliers who engage in truly unethical and irresponsible marketing practices promoting criminal conduct, and given that statutes such as CUTPA are the only means available to address those types of wrongs, it falls to a jury to decide whether the promotional schemes alleged in the present case rise to the level of illegal trade practices and whether fault for the tragedy can be laid at their feet."

[www.npr.org]

Quote
Steve G.
@macphanatic
The one flaw in your argument is that in contrast to your examples, only guns are expressly made for killing things.

It’s pretty much the one flaw every conservative forgets about, when trying to portray apples as if they are oranges.

What’s old is new: FDR’s National Firearms Act of 1934 effectively stopped the killings of the ‘20s and ‘30s with a $200 tax. The poorer psychopaths couldn’t afford it. Turns out most mass killers are indeed not rich.

That was $3700 in today’s dollars. $200 today is just another week’s work at any low end job.

[www.bloomberg.com]

Is it really a 'good' plan if there is no way in hell that it'll ever become law?

Maybe... but a great plan would be one that could actually get signed into law imo.

There is no plan - good, bad or indifferent - that will become law in the foreseeable future.

Quote
Chris Rock
"You'd better hope I can't get no bullets on layaway."

---

In tha 360. MRF User Map

Quote
macphanatic

Quote
Lemon Drop
As long as both Congress and the Supreme Court protect gun manufacturers from liability when their products are used for violence, I don't think a financial solution is going to work with guns although I love the idea. Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in 2005 that removes liability from manufacturers in most cases. Last week Remington, maker of the weapon used by the Sandy Hook shooter and subject of many lawsuits from those families, asked the Supreme Court to block a Connecticut decision to allow those lawsuits to move forward. That decision is going to be key.

Putting a big tax on guns (like the one on cigarettes) carries an acknowledgement that the product itself is harmful. We've got a ways to go before enough politicians will admit that. We'll see if SCOTUS helps us out.

So, are we going to hold car manufacturers liable for drunk driving deaths? How about the alcohol manufacturers? How about knife manufacturers for stabbing deaths or kitchen pan manufacturers for bludgeoning deaths? People can find all kinds of illegal uses for legal products. It is time that we hold individuals accountable for their actions and poor behavior. We have become a nation that accepts the shifting of blame.

How about we require liability insurance for each gun and gunner.

---

Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.

Quote
Speedy

Quote
macphanatic

Quote
Lemon Drop
As long as both Congress and the Supreme Court protect gun manufacturers from liability when their products are used for violence, I don't think a financial solution is going to work with guns although I love the idea. Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in 2005 that removes liability from manufacturers in most cases. Last week Remington, maker of the weapon used by the Sandy Hook shooter and subject of many lawsuits from those families, asked the Supreme Court to block a Connecticut decision to allow those lawsuits to move forward. That decision is going to be key.

Putting a big tax on guns (like the one on cigarettes) carries an acknowledgement that the product itself is harmful. We've got a ways to go before enough politicians will admit that. We'll see if SCOTUS helps us out.

So, are we going to hold car manufacturers liable for drunk driving deaths? How about the alcohol manufacturers? How about knife manufacturers for stabbing deaths or kitchen pan manufacturers for bludgeoning deaths? People can find all kinds of illegal uses for legal products. It is time that we hold individuals accountable for their actions and poor behavior. We have become a nation that accepts the shifting of blame.

How about we require liability insurance for each gun and gunner.

Home/renter's/umbrella insurance already provide liability coverage, and are relatively inexpensive.

Quote
Bill in NC

Quote
Speedy

Quote
macphanatic

Quote
Lemon Drop
As long as both Congress and the Supreme Court protect gun manufacturers from liability when their products are used for violence, I don't think a financial solution is going to work with guns although I love the idea. Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in 2005 that removes liability from manufacturers in most cases. Last week Remington, maker of the weapon used by the Sandy Hook shooter and subject of many lawsuits from those families, asked the Supreme Court to block a Connecticut decision to allow those lawsuits to move forward. That decision is going to be key.

Putting a big tax on guns (like the one on cigarettes) carries an acknowledgement that the product itself is harmful. We've got a ways to go before enough politicians will admit that. We'll see if SCOTUS helps us out.

So, are we going to hold car manufacturers liable for drunk driving deaths? How about the alcohol manufacturers? How about knife manufacturers for stabbing deaths or kitchen pan manufacturers for bludgeoning deaths? People can find all kinds of illegal uses for legal products. It is time that we hold individuals accountable for their actions and poor behavior. We have become a nation that accepts the shifting of blame.

How about we require liability insurance for each gun and gunner.

Home/renter's/umbrella insurance already provide liability coverage, and are relatively inexpensive.

Uh, does home/renter's/umbrella insurance cover you if you shoot someone?

---

rj
AKA
Vreemac, Moth of the Future




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/13/2019 07:07AM by rjmacs.

Quote
rjmacs

Quote
Bill in NC

Quote
Speedy

Quote
macphanatic

Quote
Lemon Drop
As long as both Congress and the Supreme Court protect gun manufacturers from liability when their products are used for violence, I don't think a financial solution is going to work with guns although I love the idea. Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act in 2005 that removes liability from manufacturers in most cases. Last week Remington, maker of the weapon used by the Sandy Hook shooter and subject of many lawsuits from those families, asked the Supreme Court to block a Connecticut decision to allow those lawsuits to move forward. That decision is going to be key.

Putting a big tax on guns (like the one on cigarettes) carries an acknowledgement that the product itself is harmful. We've got a ways to go before enough politicians will admit that. We'll see if SCOTUS helps us out.

So, are we going to hold car manufacturers liable for drunk driving deaths? How about the alcohol manufacturers? How about knife manufacturers for stabbing deaths or kitchen pan manufacturers for bludgeoning deaths? People can find all kinds of illegal uses for legal products. It is time that we hold individuals accountable for their actions and poor behavior. We have become a nation that accepts the shifting of blame.

How about we require liability insurance for each gun and gunner.

Home/renter's/umbrella insurance already provide liability coverage, and are relatively inexpensive.

Uh, does home/renter's/umbrella insurance cover you if you shoot someone?

For negligence, yes...same as if you caused an auto accident with personal injury.