National How to Make the Gun Industry Pay

[awshoot]

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

Yes, but if your position is that you think there should be zero taxes on firearm sales, you should include in that position the sales tax. Fighting that though, phwew, that's a long row to hoe.

 

[Koda]

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.

it will cost you more than a double latte, hold onto what you have cause it would make buying anything new horrendously expensive, and it would pretty much eliminate the gun industry. Allowing gun manufacturers to be held liable for criminal actions using their product would shut them down and would be any anti-gunners dream come true, they wouldn't have to worry about repealing the Second Amendment.

not quite the same as a tort liability, Take a look at Seattle's gun tax as a living example, they passed a gun tax on every gun and ammo in the city to fund the study of "gun violence", and sales plummeted and crime rose. They raised less than $200K.
Seattle gun tax failure? Firearm sales plummet, violence spikes after law passes

 

[Mark W.]

There is already a Tax on firearms and ammo its called the Pittman–Robertson Act or Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937,

Prior to the creation of the Pittman–Robertson Act, many species of wildlife were driven to or near extinction by commercial/market hunting pressure and/or habitat degradation from humans.[5] The Act created an excise tax that provides funds to each state to manage such animals and their habitats. Notable species that have come back from the brink since the implementation of this act include white-tailed deer, wild turkey, and wood ducks

from wiki

 

[notazombie]

Awshoot, I think you might be making this more complicated than it needs to be. How's this for a simple solution? No tax. We all keep our money. If we feel so moved to help a victim of a shooting we are absolutely free to help them in any way we see fit. We can give up as many or as few lattes as we want. Government has had a million opportunities to prove that they're better at managing our money than we are and they've failed miserably every time.

 

[IronMonster]

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.

Whoa whoa whoa....

You are comparing apples to oranges here. There is no instance where we hold a manufacturer responsible for criminal or negligent use of a product. A "tax" on firearms to pay for victim care is both illogical and I suspect unconstitutional. You want the 99.998% of law-abiding citizens to pay for the criminal actions of the .002% that perpetrate these kinds of crimes against others.

This is really simple. It is not the guns fault. It will never be the guns fault (nor the manufacturer or seller of the gun)

The person who is responsible is the person pulling the trigger, done and end of story. If someone gets stabbed it's not the knifes fault. If someone gets run over it's not the cars fault. (unless the car is defective and then we are talking about something else entirely ) If a person sues the knife or car or gun manufacturer I would hope the jury was smart enough not to award a dime to those seeking damages. The "somebody needs to pay" mentality is simply entitled BS.

The police, fire, EMT, Military are all examples of things we are all taxed on and all receive some sort of benefit from. A tax on guns to pay for criminal use is an example of a taxation without representation. It is a punitive measure to make the vast majority of law abiding gun owners responsible for the actions of the criminal few.

 

[Member 5605]

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.

Car insurance is required to protect the asset (vehicle), not the individual.

 

[IronMonster]

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.

Ok, perfect. People should pay for insurance so if they are the victim of a gun crime it will cover care and expenses.

We don't make other people pay for our car insurance in case we wreck our car and cause damage or hurt someone (in which case we are ultimately responsible for the damaged we caused, not the manufacturer or seller of the car)

 

[notazombie]

The insurance argument is BS too. We buy insurance to protect our own assets so if we cause property damage or injure someone (including ourselves) we don't lose everything we've worked for to make things whole. And even then, the insurance industry always wins.

 

[P7M13]

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.

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.

Part of this is knee jerk response that we "need to do something" about the shootings that have happened. Yes, we need to analyze it to see why, or the media and sheep are going to forever bleat out the mantra "we need to restrict firearms." Do we have any idea of root cause for any of the mass shootings? Pretty simple answer is mental health, but is that correct, or just a fraction of the problem?

Still, priorities here. How many die every year from mass shootings?
How many here die every year from cancer? I know four families personally who were brought to near bankruptcy and one that was because of cancer. My wife and I came damn near ourselves back in 2012. A relation's daughter lost both kidneys to e-coli (no source found) and in the process, they went from a middle class family to dirt poor, lost their house and in the end their daughter died. What compensation does society have for any of them? You may argue genetic proclivity, but it's still an instance of life where you are "unlucky."

Earlier in this thread, @IronMonster (IIRC) wrote that society thinks violence is out of control, but historically, it's not. Like b1tching about their boss, it's a common human misconception that their times are worse than before.

Car insurance is required to protect the asset (vehicle), not the individual.

And bodily injury for those injured in accidents.

 

[nwslopoke]

There are solutions to most of those issues but no one will be elected pushing them. America is at the top of the heep but a heep of what? We have to decide if we want to be free or if we want to be safe. Our tax money can go to the banks & military or we spend it on us and our own personal security/responsibilities.

 

[FireArm]

Can I sue a paper company for a paper cut?!
Those things hurt, and ive been cut more then once by un-safe paper, at the hands of ruthless paper companies just out for blood.
Sounds extra nutty more so then my peanut butter.

 

[Scot4ever]

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

Why is this thread even active?

 

[awshoot]

Car insurance is required to protect the asset (vehicle), not the individual.

Uh no. If that was true, my policy limit wouldn't $500k or so and I wouldn't have a similar amount for uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage.

 

[awshoot]

... Allowing gun manufacturers to be held liable for criminal actions using their product would shut them down and would be any anti-gunners dream come true, they wouldn't have to worry about repealing the Second Amendment. ...

No doubt -- I support the legislation that immunizes them from suit. A separate fund, or perhaps an insurance policy of some sort, made up of a small tax would be different in my mind. I am however, cognizant of the slippery slope that could well start, so any such program would have to be carefully crafted.

 

[awshoot]

Whoa whoa whoa....

You are comparing apples to oranges here. There is no instance where we hold a manufacturer responsible for criminal or negligent use of a product. ....

That's a fair criticism. I'm just sitting here thinking though, that people who have had their lives destroyed and have absolutely no chance of getting the shooter to actually compensate them, well, it really sucks to just leave them out of the cold and I would personally like to see a way in which we as a society, and me specifically as a person who owns firearms, could take care of those people.

 

[awshoot]

... We don't make other people pay for our car insurance in case we wreck our car and cause damage or hurt someone (in which case we are ultimately responsible for the damaged we caused, not the manufacturer or seller of the car)

Except I actually do pay for UIM coverage because I recognize that not all drivers are responsible drivers. Their irresponsibility comes straight out of my pocket.

 

[awshoot]

The insurance argument is BS too. We buy insurance to protect our own assets so if we cause property damage or injure someone (including ourselves) we don't lose everything we've worked for to make things whole. And even then, the insurance industry always wins.

That's too selfish. Obviously I buy insurance for that reason, but the bigger reason I buy it is because if I cause damage in excess of my ability to personally pay for it, the insurance there to make the other person whole, or at least as whole as possible. I would feel sick if I damaged someone and couldn't compensate for what I did.

 

[IronMonster]

That's a fair criticism. I'm just sitting here thinking though, that people who have had their lives destroyed and have absolutely no chance of getting the shooter to actually compensate them, well, it really sucks to just leave them out of the cold and I would personally like to see a way in which we as a society, and me specifically as a person who owns firearms, could take care of those people.

I understand that, I am not a heartless clod. But the fact is that people are hurt by things every day, have lives ruined every day. In the big picture the number affected by mass shootings is itty bitty.

We can simply give to funds set up to help victims of violence. I have done that in the past. What I can do is a tiny drop in a bucket but enough drops will fill a bucket.

 

[IronMonster]

Except I actually do pay for UIM coverage because I recognize that not all drivers are responsible drivers. Their irresponsibility comes straight out of my pocket.

But you are still paying for it and there lies the rub.

 

[awshoot]

Part of this is knee jerk response that we "need to do something" about the shootings that have happened. ....

Still, priorities here. How many die every year from mass shootings?
How many here die every year from cancer? ...

That's a good point and I will admit I am susceptible to excess sympathy. Statistically, the chance of getting shot in a mass shooting is probably lower than winning the PowerBall ... twice. If the government was really going to do something positive for public health, it would provide non-slip bathtub mats to everyone because the simple act of falling down is more likely to get you than being shot.

As for health care in general, I think that goes way off the subject of this site so I won't venture there.