National How to Make the Gun Industry Pay

[Koda]

has anyone ever heard of a case where a person sued the auto maker for damages caused by another driver? Is it even possible?

fake news.
[QUOT="slate.com"]If you are hurt by a car or a prescription drug, after all, you are typically allowed to sue for damages.[/QUOTE]

A Special Tax on the Firearm Industry Is the Only Way to Make Victims of Gun Violence Whole

 

[IronMonster]

has anyone ever heard of a case where a person sued the auto maker for damages caused by another driver? Is it even possible?

fake news.
[QUOT="slate.com"]If you are hurt by a car or a prescription drug, after all, you are typically allowed to sue for damages.

A Special Tax on the Firearm Industry Is the Only Way to Make Victims of Gun Violence Whole[/QUOTE]

You can sue anyone for anything you want.... The problem is most people don't because it cost money to sue someone and you will lose because "logic" and "laws"

The court is usually pretty good about throwing out stupid lawsuits before they get too far.

 

[Koda]

A Special Tax on the Firearm Industry Is the Only Way to Make Victims of Gun Violence Whole

You can sue anyone for anything you want.... The problem is most people don't because it cost money to sue someone and you will lose because "logic" and "laws"

The court is usually pretty good about throwing out stupid lawsuits before they get too far.

So technically the Slate article is correct that the gun industry is the only one protected in this way but neglects to state a fair unbiased reason why. The problem is with todays "logic" and "laws" the gun industry would go bankrupt with frivolous lawsuits over criminal actions (not defective guns), yet no other similar such frivolous lawsuits would get past 1st base and thrown out for stupidity. Like suing a car manufacturer because someone used their car they made to plow thru a crowd of people.

 

[awshoot]

A Special Tax on the Firearm Industry Is the Only Way to Make Victims of Gun Violence Whole

Interesting side note: in WA state, crime victims are eligible for benefits under the Workers' Comp system (100% of medical costs, a tax-free percentage of one's gross wages while incapacitated, a compensation award for permanent impairments). For Crime Victims

The idea behind this policy is that the criminals get free room and board plus medical care (while in prison), but their victims are often left in dire physical condition and incur debts that can ruin a family for no good reason.

Personally, I'm OK with somehow helping shooting victims -- it seems enourmously insensitive for a person who was harmed to be saddled with these injuries and bankruptcy through no fault of their own, but more to the point, I think it is short sighted to oppose systems that ameliorate their wounds, both physical and financial, because "leaving them for dead" so to speak, gives the antis further ammunition to use against people who support the 2A.

 

[P7M13]

From the article:

There is, though, something states can do. Legislatures should impose a new tax on gun dealers and manufacturers and place the revenue in a special fund. This fund should be used to cover the medical bills of gun violence survivors. The firearm industry is responsible for America's crisis of gun violence. It should be required to pay for it

With demonstrated logical abilities like the emboldened text, I pity any LGBTQ individual who heeds Mr. Stern's legal advice.
Legislatures might just try to pass such a tax, and any amount received from it will be dwarfed by the legal costs defending the legislation in court.
If they do prevail and establish said special fund, that fund will be sucked dry every year to cover budget shortfalls, especially public pensions.

[ETA] I just noticed, he's implying all gun violence. OK, so this tax fund should be used to make right anyone shot, including gang-bangers who shoot each other up? I can see "self inflicted gunshot wounds" rising exponentially.

I can just see Gov. Brown's office scheming ways to implement such lunacy.

 

[awshoot]

... Legislatures might just try to pass such a tax, and any amount received from it will be dwarfed by the legal costs defending the legislation in court.
If they do prevail and establish said special fund, that fund will be sucked dry every year to cover budget shortfalls, especially public pensions. ... .

Agreed - if there was something of this nature set up for crime victims, it would have to be off limits for any other purpose, and the way it was set up would have to be fair and reasonable. For example, a tax on every gun sold of $100 would be ridiculously overboard. With 16M guns sold per year, and so few actual mass shootings (though they do get massive coverage) the number of victims would be quite small. A buck or two per firearm would surely suffice and wouldn't bother me (though there is the whole slippery slope thing to consider).

 

[P7M13]

Interesting side note: in WA state, crime victims are eligible for benefits under the Workers' Comp system (100% of medical costs, a tax-free percentage of one's gross wages while incapacitated, a compensation award for permanent impairments). For Crime Victims

The idea behind this policy is that the criminals get free room and board plus medical care (while in prison), but their victims are often left in dire physical condition and incur debts that can ruin a family for no good reason.

Personally, I'm OK with somehow helping shooting victims -- it seems enourmously insensitive for a person who was harmed to be saddled with these injuries and bankruptcy through no fault of their own, but more to the point, I think it is short sighted to oppose systems that ameliorate their wounds, both physical and financial, because "leaving them for dead" so to speak, gives the antis further ammunition to use against people who support the 2A.

It's not the government's responsibility to cover said expenses and make whole the lives of victims. That is one of those unlucky things in life. Our nation's citizens have become complacent and feeling entitled to handouts.
This is part of the breakdown of the fabric of society: a community tragedy happens, community should help out. It's the right thing to do. Some people and families still do it, but it's a practice that has become scarce.

 

[awshoot]

... [ETA] I just noticed, he's implying all gun violence. OK, so this tax fund should be used to make right anyone shot, including gang-bangers who shoot each other up? I can see "self inflicted gunshot wounds" rising exponentially. ...

I think the way WA does its Crime Victims Compensation program is pretty smart (from the FAQ: Eligibility Requirements ):

The Crime Victims Compensation Program may deny an application if:

• Your injuries were the result of your own actions such as provoking, inciting or participating in the event that led to your injuries.
• Your injury happened while you were attempting to or committing a felony.
• The injury happened while you were incarcerated.
• You've been convicted of a felony within five years preceding the criminal act for which you are applying where the felony is a violent offense under RCW 9.94A.030 (www.leg.wa.gov) or a crime against persons under RCW 9.94A.411 (www.leg.wa.gov), or if you're convicted of a felony after applying and haven't completely satisfied all legal financial obligations owed prior to applying for benefits.

That eliminates gang bangers, suicides, getting into duels, inciting a shooting, etc. etc.

 

[nammac]

Agreed - if there was something of this nature set up for crime victims, it would have to be off limits for any other purpose, and the way it was set up would have to be fair and reasonable. For example, a tax on every gun sold of $100 would be ridiculously overboard. With 16M guns sold per year, and so few actual mass shootings (though they do get massive coverage) the number of victims would be quite small. A buck or two per firearm would surely suffice and wouldn't bother me (though there is the whole slippery slope thing to consider).

I understand the buck or two, not much of a burden... But this is a tax on a constitutional right. Then why not impose a poll tax as well, thus only those with expendable income can vote.

Constitutional and Civil Rights cannot be taxed... Didn't we settle this issue once already, taxation without representation?!?!?

 

[awshoot]

It's not the government's responsibility to cover said expenses and make whole the lives of victims. That is one of those unlucky things in life. ...

There's a balance to be struck. Step back to the car analogy (I know, not perfect) -- we are required to have insurance so that if an accident does happen, we can compensate the victims. You would have to search far and wide to find someone who thinks that is a bad idea. We might hate everything about the insurance industry, but it is useful to society -- whether cars, health, fire, earthquake, hurricane, or whatever, insurance protects people from those unlucky things in life and helps society function more smoothly.

In contrast, when people are rendered disabled AND destitute through no fault of their own, they become burdens on society and some become trouble for society. It is far cheaper prevent destitution and the problems it brings, than to deal with the issues after the fact through courts and prisons.

 

[best defense]

A Special Tax on the Firearm Industry Is the Only Way to Make Victims of Gun Violence Whole

There are so many arguments against this line of thinking that I cannot enumerate half of them, but here are some examples:
If you purchase a knife and cut yourself with it do you sue the company that made the knife?
When that terrorist used a truck to run over and kill all those cyclists in New York recently did anyone suggest that the company that made the truck was responsible?
If a pyromaniac sets fire to your house do you blame the company that made the matches he used to light the fire?
In the Boston marathon bombing case did anyone try to sue the company that made the fireworks that were used to create the explosive?
Society in general and gun manufactures in particular are not responsible for the acts of criminals and terrorists. Your thinking is way beyond warped it is down right criminal.

There is an old story about an old king who had a son. The son was a warped individual and liked to go around the kingdom killing people at random. One day the peasants had enough and after one particularly brutal slaying of a young man, they swarmed the killer and dragged him in front of the king and demanded justice. The king responded by having a trial. He put his son's sword on trial and convicted it of murder. The sword was then sentenced to life in the dungeon. The brutal sun was whisked off to another country where he continued his brutal ways until one day someone challenged him to a duel. The brutal son was so used to having his way with unarmed victims that he thought he could do whatever he wanted. He died in the duel.

How about if we stop blaming society for what criminals do and hold the criminals responsible?

 

[awshoot]

I understand the buck or two, not much of a burden... But this is a tax on a constitutional right. Then why not impose a poll tax as well, thus only those with expendable income can vote.

Constitutional and Civil Rihhts cannot be taxed... Didn't we settle this issue once already, taxation without representation?!?!?

You have a right to a trial under the 5th Amendment but if you want to actually exercise that right, it will cost you tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fees. Honestly, I would worry that a tax on gun sales for this purpose could easily be abused by making the tax ridiculously high. At the same time, I wish there was a way for the victims of these shootings to receive the help and treatment they need without being rendered destitute. I don't know what the perfect way to do that is, but the humanitarian in me feels we should find a way, and the gun lover in me thinks it would positive marketing.

 

[Jim Horn]

Regarding a tiny tax on gun sales - you do know, I assume, that when the federal income tax started in 1913 it was for 0.5% of income? And when the amendment that made it possible was first proposed, it included a provision that it could never exceed 5% - but that part was stripped out due to heated arguments that such a stratospheric percentage might someday serve as a goal, not a limit.

Be careful when camels get their noses into the tent...

 

[nammac]

You have a right to a trial under the 5th Amendment but if you want to actually exercise that right, it will cost you tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fees. Honestly, I would worry that a tax on gun sales for this purpose could easily be abused by making the tax ridiculously high. At the same time, I wish there was a way for the victims of these shootings to receive the help and treatment they need without being rendered destitute. I don't know what the perfect way to do that is, but the humanitarian in me feels we should find a way, and the gun lover in me thinks it would positive marketing.

Victim compensation should come from the perpetrators estate and remaining family. Forfeiture of assets... I, as a law abiding American exercising my Constitutional Rights, should not be subject to a tax or insurance or other fee, in the event some whack job cuts loose and mows people down...

How about a thousand dollar tax on the sale of a car or truck, because it might be used to mow people down?

Or a hundred dollar tax on a bottle of whisky because you might drive drunk?

How about a ten dollar tax on a case of beer because you might drive drunk???

Or perhaps a tax upon each text message or forum posting? Just in case you cause someone distress???

 

[awshoot]

Victim compensation should come from the perpetrators estate and remaining family. ...

It certainly should come from the estate, but I'm sure we're all aware that this is often an impossibility. As for the "sins of the father" ... I'll have to disagree with that. Let's say you had a brother who was a total nut job. You absolutely refused to help him get a firearm, kept your own locked away, never let the dude in your house, tried to have him committed for his own and your own safety, never gave him a penny -- in short, never lifted a finger to enable him to do a mass shooting. He illegally buys a gun in a back alley in some distant state and kills 15 random people. I totally don't think you should be liable for that.

 

[nammac]

It certainly should come from the estate, but I'm sure we're all aware that this is often an impossibility. As for the "sins of the father" ... I'll have to disagree with that. Let's say you had a brother who was a total nut job. You absolutely refused to help him get a firearm, kept your own locked away, never let the dude in your house, tried to have him committed for his own and your own safety, never gave him a penny -- in short, never lifted a finger to enable him to do a mass shooting. He illegally buys a gun in a back alley in some distant state and kills 15 random people. I totally don't think you should be liable for that.

Nor should I as a law abiding citizen. No taxes on firearms... period...

In this particular case, the United States Air Force has more responsibility for what happened than any manufacturer...

They failed to get information into the NICS system... But I'm sure they'll walk away scott free...

 

[awshoot]

Nor should I as a law abiding citizen. No taxes on firearms... period...

Well, that's already lost. Sales tax you know.

 

[nammac]

Well, that's already lost. Sales tax you know.

We were talking about a tax for victims compensation, correct?

 

[Koda]

It defies all logic to make any manufacturer liable for criminal damages.

 

[awshoot]

Ultimately, I guess this comes down to what you perceive the role of Government is and where you draw lines. We pay taxes for police - presumably the purpose of the police is to protect the community. This is a form of socialism (we spread the cost of protection amongst all tax paying citizens so that people don't have to pay for their own private bodyguards). We pay for firehouses -- same thing. EMT services -- same thing. Military -- again, we socialize the costs of protection on a national level. I am personally in favor of extending a hand to people who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in a horrendous situation when doing so would only cost me a double tall latte. I'm pretty OK with that.