Jim M

What Does Gun Violence Really Cost?

Recommended Posts

 

 

Well buying a Kel-Tec for fit & quality is like buying a f'ng Yugo for the Dakar Rally....... :lol:

 

Yep. But it has to sting to get your hand blown off and find you can't sue them for making a lousy product.

 

 

 

Well I fully agree that if there was/is a big design flaw....then sue the fuk out of 'em. Like any other manufacturer who's built shit products over the years. I really don't care.....

 

 

They are shielded, any lawsuit will get dismissed. Best to just stay away from the inferior products.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that 'they're shielded' only from the crimes committed by someone using their firearms. Which is how it should be in this country.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that 'they're shielded' only from the crimes committed by someone using their firearms. Which is how it should be in this country.....

 

No, the law has been broadly interpreted to include negligence lawsuits. California repealed that protection of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Cite some examples of holding car companies responsible for the criminal misuse of their products.

 

 

Isn't that the reason why we have insurance for auto accidents in the first place? The manipulation of tort law made it necessary to provide some kind of reparation for injury caused in accidents. Gun manufacturers have been able to hold off product liability lawsuits for a long time, insurance would address some of the issues that guns create.

 

 

There is a vast difference between product liability when a product has been show to be defective or unsafe (airbags for instance) and causes injuries and a company being held liable for criminal misuse of a perfectly functioning product. You DO get the difference don't you??? I know jocal doesn't, but I expect a bit better from the rest of you.

 

I've asked this before and been studiously ignored by the gun grabber crowd.... But I guess hope springs eternal. So here goes again: If I deliberately plow my perfectly functioning Explorer into a crowd of people and kill 10 - should Ford be on the hook for liability in that incident? Futhermore, if I decided that it would be a good idea to careen down a mountain road in that same Explorer at > 100 mph on wet road and missed a hairpin curve and sailed off into space down a mountain canyon and ended up in a crumpled ball at the bottom - is that also Ford's fault?

 

Think about that seriously for a mo before answering.... because that is EXACTLY what you expect gun manufacturers and sellers to be liable for - i.e. deliberate misuse of a perfectly functioning product.

 

 

Your question is pretty much moot since 10 years ago, Congress passed the "Protection of Lawful Arms in Commerce Act" granting the gun industry immunity in state and federal court from civil liability in most negligence and products liability actions. So, unlike the makers of automobiles, drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, knives, gun manufacturers and sellers have a lesser obligation to act with reasonable care for public safety.

 

The counter to that is the gun grabbers will perpetually try to pierce that shield and will likely be successful at some point depending on the carelessness of bad actors that hide behind the shield.

 

 

Well.... that was a clumsy way I saying "I gots nuthin". But I feel your pain in trying to equate accidental deaths in the auto, drug, alcohol and cigarette industries as a result of defective and unsafe products with deliberate misuse of a perfectly working and absolutely safe gun to cause someone else's death. If guns were routinely just firing all their rounds into public crowds without any input from the shooter and causing injury, similar to airbags exploding without warning, you might have a case to make. But you don't. Because that's not happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I believe that 'they're shielded' only from the crimes committed by someone using their firearms. Which is how it should be in this country.....

 

No, the law has been broadly interpreted to include negligence lawsuits. California repealed that protection of course.

 

 

 

Well that one I don't know about....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well buying a Kel-Tec for fit & quality is like buying a f'ng Yugo for the Dakar Rally....... :lol:

 

Yep. But it has to sting to get your hand blown off and find you can't sue them for making a lousy product.

 

 

How many of the gun deaths out there are from Kel-tecs? A couple? Is this what we are talking about? No, I didn't think so. Red herrings are over in aisle 13.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Well buying a Kel-Tec for fit & quality is like buying a f'ng Yugo for the Dakar Rally....... :lol:

 

Yep. But it has to sting to get your hand blown off and find you can't sue them for making a lousy product.

 

 

How many of the gun deaths out there are from Kel-tecs? A couple? Is this what we are talking about? No, I didn't think so. Red herrings are over in aisle 13.

 

 

Who was talking about gun deaths? the next time you get your hand blown off using a ksg, just remember its all on you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or (as they say) check your lug nuts before embarking on any long trip?.....:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well buying a Kel-Tec for fit & quality is like buying a f'ng Yugo for the Dakar Rally....... :lol:

 

Yep. But it has to sting to get your hand blown off and find you can't sue them for making a lousy product.

 

Z-boi likes Kel-Tecs. And Honda Ridgelines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Well buying a Kel-Tec for fit & quality is like buying a f'ng Yugo for the Dakar Rally....... :lol:

 

Yep. But it has to sting to get your hand blown off and find you can't sue them for making a lousy product.

 

Z-boi likes Kel-Tecs. And Honda Ridgelines.

 

 

 

And Z-Boi is representative of all of us firearm owners?.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Well buying a Kel-Tec for fit & quality is like buying a f'ng Yugo for the Dakar Rally....... :lol:

 

Yep. But it has to sting to get your hand blown off and find you can't sue them for making a lousy product.

 

Z-boi likes Kel-Tecs. And Honda Ridgelines.

 

 

 

And Z-Boi is representative of all of us firearm owners?.......

 

 

He is representative of too many. Angry, entitled attitudes and guns don't mix well.

Sometimes, a self-righteous outlook and being armed don't mix well.

Boothy%20exit%20wound%20Tommy%20Lee%20Jo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But then occasionally there's a story like this that'll just make ya say Hmmmmmm....:lol:

 

 

<div id="banner-0" class="ad-728x90" "="" style="padding: 5px 10px 10px 7px; margin: 0px auto; position: relative; width: 728px; height: 90px; overflow: hidden;">
Man Kills Armadillo, but Ricochet Gunshot Hits Mother-in-Law
LEESBURG, Ga. — Apr 14, 2015, 8:14 AM ET
AP_logo_update_20130709.gif

 

Authorities say a south Georgia man shot an armadillo, but ended up accidentally wounding his mother-in-law when the bullet ricocheted off the mammal known for its hard shell.

Lee County Sheriff's deputies tell WALB-TV (http://bit.ly/1FCGUBO) that 54-year-old Larry McElroy fired his 9 mm pistol at the armadillo Sunday night.

Deputies say the bullet killed the armadillo, but bounced off the animal, hit a fence, traveled through the back door of the mother-in-law's mobile home and the recliner in which she was sitting, striking her in the back.

McElroy's 74-year-old mother-in-law, Carol Johnson, suffered injuries described as non-life-threatening. Lee County sheriff's investigator Bill Smith said she was walking around and talking afterward.

Lee County Sherriff's deputies say McElroy was about 100 yards away from the home when he shot the armadillo.

 

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVpOAZeltuY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Well buying a Kel-Tec for fit & quality is like buying a f'ng Yugo for the Dakar Rally....... :lol:

 

Yep. But it has to sting to get your hand blown off and find you can't sue them for making a lousy product.

 

 

How many of the gun deaths out there are from Kel-tecs? A couple? Is this what we are talking about? No, I didn't think so. Red herrings are over in aisle 13.

 

 

Who was talking about gun deaths? the next time you get your hand blown off using a ksg, just remember its all on you.

 

 

 

 

 

I think Kel-techs are crap and wouldn't have one if you gave it to me. But I'm still not seeing your point. We WERE talking about gun deaths caused by deliberate actions (murder) and you bring up injuries from one single model gun.

 

If your point is that gun manufacturers are shielded from litigation for defective products that cause injury - I have a hard time buying that is true that kel tech could not be sued for liability in a gun exploding in someone's hands. They may be shielded from harassment lawsuits trying to sue them for someone else's negligent use of a perfectly functioning gun but that's an entirely different story.

 

However, IF that shield law does extend to actual product liability as well as against harrassing suits... then you only have your own fucking side to blame for it. The rash of litigation trying to bring down the gun industry over deliberate and conscious misuses of their products was just too much bullshit. So you get the backlash from congress that you deserve. If your side were not total, short-sighted asses about the whole topic - you wouldn't get that shit thrown in you face.

 

A cursory google search seems to imply that my first thought was correct - that actual product defect isn't shielded from liability claims: http://injury.findlaw.com/product-liability/product-liability-and-guns.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From that article, it sounded like the guy shot his hand off because he was misusing an aftermarket forward grip that he installed himself. Not seeing how that is Kel-Tec's fault at all. I have an itty bitty Kel-Tec p32 that is my carry gun when I can't conceal anything else. 10 rounds and I could hide it in my sock, always goes bang, has not blown up yet. I suspect it never will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Cite some examples of holding car companies responsible for the criminal misuse of their products.

 

 

Isn't that the reason why we have insurance for auto accidents in the first place? The manipulation of tort law made it necessary to provide some kind of reparation for injury caused in accidents. Gun manufacturers have been able to hold off product liability lawsuits for a long time, insurance would address some of the issues that guns create.

 

 

No, it is not the reason.

 

I answered your question and note that you did not answer mine. Have you got any examples of holding car companies responsible for criminal misuse of their products?

 

 

 

I believe that 'they're shielded' only from the crimes committed by someone using their firearms. Which is how it should be in this country.....

 

No, the law has been broadly interpreted to include negligence lawsuits. California repealed that protection of course.

 

 

 

Cite or it didn't happen. The Lawful Commerce in Arms Act does not protect them from suits for product defects. Just suits for things like suicides, which are the main topic of this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No, it is not the reason.

 

I answered your question and note that you did not answer mine. Have you got any examples of holding car companies responsible for criminal misuse of their products?

 

No. However, you know how this works as well as I do. Just like Roe v Wade, or the implementation of Social Security or Obamacare, someone, sometime, with the correct number of justices willing to listen, anything can be overturned. One thing is for sure, and that is some people will never stop trying to inflict their own ideas on the rest of us.

 

 

Cite or it didn't happen. The Lawful Commerce in Arms Act does not protect them from suits for product defects. Just suits for things like suicides, which are the main topic of this thread.

 

 

"(5) an action for death, physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that where the discharge of the product was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense, then such act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or property damage; or

 

That definitely does protect them from lawsuits for product defects even when a child does not know the meaning of "volitional"

 

The main topic of the thread was to create a discussion on the best way if any, to mitigate the cost of gun violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

No, it is not the reason.

 

I answered your question and note that you did not answer mine. Have you got any examples of holding car companies responsible for criminal misuse of their products?

 

No. However, you know how this works as well as I do. Just like Roe v Wade, or the implementation of Social Security or Obamacare, someone, sometime, with the correct number of justices willing to listen, anything can be overturned. One thing is for sure, and that is some people will never stop trying to inflict their own ideas on the rest of us. Yes, and I wish you and your elk would just fucking stop for once.

 

 

Cite or it didn't happen. The Lawful Commerce in Arms Act does not protect them from suits for product defects. Just suits for things like suicides, which are the main topic of this thread.

 

 

"(5) an action for death, physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that where the discharge of the product was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense, then such act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or property damage; or

 

That definitely does protect them from lawsuits for product defects even when a child does not know the meaning of "volitional"

 

The main topic of the thread was to create a discussion on the best way if any, to mitigate the cost of gun violence.

 

 

BL, your logic and reasoning skills are already suspect. You are not helping your case here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The main topic of the thread was to create a discussion on the best way if any, to mitigate the cost of gun violence.

 

 

Look, if that was actually the "main topic" - you did a pretty shit poor job of presenting it that way. It seemed to be just another thread where gun-haters use BS stats to try to poke those of us in the eye who take the 2nd Am seriously.

 

But you're lucky because you happened to have caught me in a transitional period. I wanna help you.

 

If you were really concerned about the "cost", you would be talking about the cost of all violence. Why single out which tool was used?

 

Furthermore - where you lose people who might actually have an earnest discussion with you is when you use disingenuous stats like 33,000 deaths is all gun "violence". That's complete BS. From your own article:

 

gun_gray.jpg

 

Only 1/3 of that 33,000 number is actual "gun violence". Using suicide to pad your numbers is a liars game. Yes, the act of suicide is violent, but that doesn't make it "gun violence" in the commonly accepted use of the term. You KNOW this to be true. And that makes you either lazy, deliberately obtuse, or purposefully a liar. You choose.

 

And then to add in officer involved shootings into a discussion of "gun violence", while the number is small - the very fact that they would even include presumably justified shootings tells more about the bias in the article than anything else.

 

Let's just get this straight once and for all and forever more...... suicide is a personal choice. If someone wants to off themselves - its not only NOT our business, but the means of that end is totally irrelevant to any discussion about "violence". It is no more the gun's fault that someone stuck a Glock in their mouth and pulled the trigger than it is the sidewalk's fault for the jumper whose brains are splattered on the pavement.

 

So now we are down to ~11K gun violence deaths and ~600 accidental gun deaths per year. Calculate the cost to society of THAT and I will be more than happy to have that discussion. But while you're doing those calcs - be sure to factor in all the crimes, injuries and deaths that have been prevented by a citizen with a gun defending him/herself. The cost saved by society of that figure might put us back in the black. But no one ever talks about that benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

No, it is not the reason.

 

I answered your question and note that you did not answer mine. Have you got any examples of holding car companies responsible for criminal misuse of their products?

 

No. However, you know how this works as well as I do. Just like Roe v Wade, or the implementation of Social Security or Obamacare, someone, sometime, with the correct number of justices willing to listen, anything can be overturned. One thing is for sure, and that is some people will never stop trying to inflict their own ideas on the rest of us. Yes, and I wish you and your elk would just fucking stop for once.

 

 

Cite or it didn't happen. The Lawful Commerce in Arms Act does not protect them from suits for product defects. Just suits for things like suicides, which are the main topic of this thread.

 

 

"(5) an action for death, physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that where the discharge of the product was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense, then such act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or property damage; or

 

That definitely does protect them from lawsuits for product defects even when a child does not know the meaning of "volitional"

 

The main topic of the thread was to create a discussion on the best way if any, to mitigate the cost of gun violence.

 

 

BL, your logic and reasoning skills are already suspect. You are not helping your case here.

 

 

The only thing I advocated was a discussion on how to mitigate the $229 Billion cost of gun violence that happens every year like clockwork and to do that by subjecting those that create that cost with penalties or insurance to mitigate that cost. Nothing I posted that you responded to was untrue or misleading. I suggest it is your own logic and reasoning skills that are suspect here, I completely understand how you might get upset by any one calling for you to be responsible for the hobby that you hold so dear. I don't see anything wrong with that, but only that we need to talk about the problems associated with it. Your visceral response just makes a reasonable discussion more difficult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

No, it is not the reason.

 

I answered your question and note that you did not answer mine. Have you got any examples of holding car companies responsible for criminal misuse of their products?

 

No. However, you know how this works as well as I do. Just like Roe v Wade, or the implementation of Social Security or Obamacare, someone, sometime, with the correct number of justices willing to listen, anything can be overturned. One thing is for sure, and that is some people will never stop trying to inflict their own ideas on the rest of us. Yes, and I wish you and your elk would just fucking stop for once.

 

 

Cite or it didn't happen. The Lawful Commerce in Arms Act does not protect them from suits for product defects. Just suits for things like suicides, which are the main topic of this thread.

 

 

"(5) an action for death, physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that where the discharge of the product was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense, then such act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or property damage; or

 

That definitely does protect them from lawsuits for product defects even when a child does not know the meaning of "volitional"

 

The main topic of the thread was to create a discussion on the best way if any, to mitigate the cost of gun violence.

 

 

BL, your logic and reasoning skills are already suspect. You are not helping your case here.

 

 

The only thing I advocated was a discussion on how to mitigate the $229 Billion cost of gun violence that happens every year like clockwork and to do that by subjecting those that create that cost with penalties or insurance to mitigate that cost. Nothing I posted that you responded to was untrue or misleading. I suggest it is your own logic and reasoning skills that are suspect here, I completely understand how you might get upset by any one calling for you to be responsible for the hobby that you hold so dear. I don't see anything wrong with that, but only that we need to talk about the problems associated with it. Your visceral response just makes a reasonable discussion more difficult.

 

 

Its not a visceral response BL. You have started from a false premise. Gun "violence" does not cost the US $229B. At most its 1/3 of that number. And as I said, the benefit to society from guns also needs to be added back in for there to be an honest discussion.

 

And furthermore, my "hobby" is not CAUSING" or is responsible for jack-shit. You call it my hobby, I call it the constitution. Guess which one wins?

 

As I said, I'm MORE than happy to discuss the problems related to the irresponsible misuse of guns. But those problems are all human-related, not inanimate object related.

 

FYI - according to the CDC, the economic cost to society of alcohol related issues cost us $223B per year and 88,000 deaths. Should we have alcohol violence insurance? Be able to sue Budwieser and Jack Daniels for killing ourselves or others with booze? Why is that hobby so many hold so dear ok and not under scrutiny, yet a constitutional right is the end of the fucking world to you?

 

Last I checked 88K > 33K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

No, it is not the reason.

 

I answered your question and note that you did not answer mine. Have you got any examples of holding car companies responsible for criminal misuse of their products?

 

No. However, you know how this works as well as I do. Just like Roe v Wade, or the implementation of Social Security or Obamacare, someone, sometime, with the correct number of justices willing to listen, anything can be overturned. One thing is for sure, and that is some people will never stop trying to inflict their own ideas on the rest of us.

 

 

Cite or it didn't happen. The Lawful Commerce in Arms Act does not protect them from suits for product defects. Just suits for things like suicides, which are the main topic of this thread.

 

 

shall not include—

 

"(5) an action for death, physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that where the discharge of the product was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense, then such act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or property damage; or

 

That definitely does protect them from lawsuits for product defects even when a child does not know the meaning of "volitional"

 

The main topic of the thread was to create a discussion on the best way if any, to mitigate the cost of gun violence.

 

 

Yes, I do know how this works as well as you do. People try BS tactics in an effort to make gun ownership more burdensome and expensive. That's how it works, this thread is an example.

 

You said the law had been interpreted to protect manufacturers from defective product liability. Interpretations are done by courts.

 

You posted the text of the law, not any court decision. You also omitted a significant part that reverses the meaning you wanted to see. I added it back in bold and red. Are you hard of reading, or just didn't notice that part, or were you just lying?

 

Most of the "gun violence" cost you want to discuss is from suicides, is it not? That makes suicides the main topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to come off sounding glib or heartless, but if we are talking about cost of suicide to society - I would say the economic benefit outweighs the economic cost. Sure there is an emotional cost. But this thread is about $$ cost. The roughly 20,000 self-murders, depending on how old they were at the time of their self-homicide, actually is a HUGE cost saver to the tax payer when you factor in all the things like obamacare payouts, SS benefits, elder costs, and such over their lifetime. Similar to the fact that smokers dying early saved everyone money. The cost of washing the brains off the ceiling can't be that much......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

No, it is not the reason.

 

I answered your question and note that you did not answer mine. Have you got any examples of holding car companies responsible for criminal misuse of their products?

 

No. However, you know how this works as well as I do. Just like Roe v Wade, or the implementation of Social Security or Obamacare, someone, sometime, with the correct number of justices willing to listen, anything can be overturned. One thing is for sure, and that is some people will never stop trying to inflict their own ideas on the rest of us.

 

 

Cite or it didn't happen. The Lawful Commerce in Arms Act does not protect them from suits for product defects. Just suits for things like suicides, which are the main topic of this thread.

 

 

shall not include—

 

"(5) an action for death, physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that where the discharge of the product was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense, then such act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or property damage; or

 

That definitely does protect them from lawsuits for product defects even when a child does not know the meaning of "volitional"

 

The main topic of the thread was to create a discussion on the best way if any, to mitigate the cost of gun violence.

 

 

Yes, I do know how this works as well as you do. People try BS tactics in an effort to make gun ownership more burdensome and expensive. That's how it works, this thread is an example.

 

You said the law had been interpreted to protect manufacturers from defective product liability. Interpretations are done by courts.

 

You posted the text of the law, not any court decision. You also omitted a significant part that reverses the meaning you wanted to see. I added it back in bold and red. Are you hard of reading, or just didn't notice that part, or were you just lying?

 

Most of the "gun violence" cost you want to discuss is from suicides, is it not? That makes suicides the main topic.

 

 

I don't think lawsuits where people try to get a hearing of their personal gripes is BS at all, that's how it works in this country. I don't think making people responsible is burdensome or necessarily more expensive, its about standing up for the cost inflicted upon others.

 

Here's what I know Tom, the PLCAA was a gift to the gun industry there isn't any dispute over that. I don't believe there have been any favorable decisions affecting product liability since the PLCAA was enacted. That should tell you something.

 

I don't see how 20,000 suicides could begin to approach a $229 Billion yearly cost. That doesn't mean that I don't question those numbers I would certainly prefer something more authoritative than "Mother Jones" for sourcing. If you can express "suicide" as the primary contributor to the cost of gun violence with proper sourcing I'll agree to modify my position.

Not to come off sounding glib or heartless, but if we are talking about cost of suicide to society - I would say the economic benefit outweighs the economic cost. Sure there is an emotional cost. But this thread is about $$ cost. The roughly 20,000 self-murders, depending on how old they were at the time of their self-homicide, actually is a HUGE cost saver to the tax payer when you factor in all the things like obamacare payouts, SS benefits, elder costs, and such over their lifetime. Similar to the fact that smokers dying early saved everyone money. The cost of washing the brains off the ceiling can't be that much......

 

It's both glib and heartless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Its not a visceral response BL. You have started from a false premise. Gun "violence" does not cost the US $229B. At most its 1/3 of that number. And as I said, the benefit to society from guns also needs to be added back in for there to be an honest discussion.

 

And furthermore, my "hobby" is not CAUSING" or is responsible for jack-shit. You call it my hobby, I call it the constitution. Guess which one wins?

 

As I said, I'm MORE than happy to discuss the problems related to the irresponsible misuse of guns. But those problems are all human-related, not inanimate object related.

 

FYI - according to the CDC, the economic cost to society of alcohol related issues cost us $223B per year and 88,000 deaths. Should we have alcohol violence insurance? Be able to sue Budwieser and Jack Daniels for killing ourselves or others with booze? Why is that hobby so many hold so dear ok and not under scrutiny, yet a constitutional right is the end of the fucking world to you?

 

Last I checked 88K > 33K.

 

Gun violence does cost the U.S. an extraordinary amount of money every single year whether it is $70 Billion of $229 Billion. That part of the discussion is set in stone. The part we are discussing is how best to mitigate that cost.

 

Your fall back on the Constitution is faulty also since the discussion centers on responsibility. The premise of the post I made at the top of the thread established that no one should have to surrender or be threatened with the loss of their guns. Just as people who do not own guns should have to share in the burden of gun violence.

 

Mitigating the costs of gun violence, smoking, alcohol abuse, obesity, costs of war, should be open to discussion, a healthier nation should be a desirable result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't see how 20,000 suicides could begin to approach a $229 Billion yearly cost. That doesn't mean that I don't question those numbers I would certainly prefer something more authoritative than "Mother Jones" for sourcing. If you can express "suicide" as the primary contributor to the cost of gun violence with proper sourcing I'll agree to modify my position.

 

 

I don't either? The alternative is that the other 11-12K, which are actual deaths resulting from gun violence, is costing that much. Does that even slightly make any sense to you? If it does, I have some land in Central FL between Miami and Ft ************ that maybe I could interest you into purchasing cheap....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not to come off sounding glib or heartless, but if we are talking about cost of suicide to society - I would say the economic benefit outweighs the economic cost. Sure there is an emotional cost. But this thread is about $$ cost. The roughly 20,000 self-murders, depending on how old they were at the time of their self-homicide, actually is a HUGE cost saver to the tax payer when you factor in all the things like obamacare payouts, SS benefits, elder costs, and such over their lifetime. Similar to the fact that smokers dying early saved everyone money. The cost of washing the brains off the ceiling can't be that much......

 

It's both glib and heartless.

 

 

Perhaps. But completely true nonetheless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we really want to reduce "gun violence", we would end the war on drugs. That is the source of most of our LE costs and most of the violence. It is beyond absurd to think that putting taxes on guns or requiring gun owners to have insurance or allowing people to sue gun companies is going to stop the shootings and homicides that are born out of an underground drug economy. Come on people, you are smarter than this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The M/Jones 'article' that you first posted was (if you look real carefully) was merely written by four of their writers......who 'based their research' from some economist named Ted Miller. If you ask me Miller's really reaching in his a quest to pump up his number$....

 

 

 

The Cost of Firearm Violence

Firearm injuries cost $174 billion in the United States in 2010 and the government's firearm injury bill alone exceeded $12 billion. PIRE researcher Ted Miller estimates annual firearm injury costs average $645 per gun in America. The costs include medical and mental health care costs, criminal justice costs, wage losses, and the value of pain, suffering and lost quality of life. Violence - assaults and suicide acts - dominated the costs. These estimates are based on the latest injury data from the Centers for Disease Control and unit costs from the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation's (PIRE) widely cited injury cost model. Data was developed by Ted R Miller, PhD, Principal Research Scientist, Children's Safety Network Economics and Data Analysis Resource Center, at Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, December 2012. All incidence data are from CDC's WISQARS web query system, accessed December 2012.

CostPerFirearm_0.png

CostGovt1_0.png

CostSociety_0.png

CostGovtInjury_0.png

 

 

 

SOURCES

Ted R Miller, PhD, Principal Research Scientist, Children's Safety Network Economics and Data Analysis Resource Center, at Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, December 2012, miller@pire.org, 240-441-2890
All incidence data are from CDC's WISQARS web query system, accessed December 2012.
DEFINITIONS
Medical Care includes payments for hospital and physician care, as well as rehabilitation, prescriptions, allied health services, medical devices, and insurance claims processing. For fatalities, also include coroner and premature burial costs.
Mental Health Care includes payments for services by psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, and pastoral counselors. Also includes insurance claims processing.
Work Loss includes wages, fringe benefits, and household work lost due to death and permanent or temporary disability.
Lost Tax Revenue includes income taxes losses due to wage losses.
Criminal Justice includes criminal justice processing, sanctions, legal defense, and incarceration costs.
Emergency Transport includes ambulance, helicopter, and coroner transport costs.
Police includes costs of police response and investigation.
Criminal Justice includes criminal justice processing, sanctions, legal defense, and incarceration costs.
Insurance Claims Processing is the cost of processing public and/or private health insurance claims.
Employer Cost includes costs of recruiting and training replacements for workers who are killed or permanently disabled and juggling schedules due to temporary disability, as well as workplace disruption talking about firearm incidents.
Quality of Life values the pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life of people who were shot and their families; we did not value fear experienced by people who were not shot.
Direct Cost includes out-of-pocket costs for medical and mental health care, emergency transport, police, criminal justice, and insurance administration.

These estimates were funded by the Health Resources and Services Administration, US Department of Health and Human Services, and by Public Health Law Research, a national program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Sorry, had to do something else to include these last three graphs).....

 

 

 

 

 

CostperGun_0%201.png
CostInjuryIntent_0.png
CostIncidentIntent_0.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Its not a visceral response BL. You have started from a false premise. Gun "violence" does not cost the US $229B. At most its 1/3 of that number. And as I said, the benefit to society from guns also needs to be added back in for there to be an honest discussion.

 

And furthermore, my "hobby" is not CAUSING" or is responsible for jack-shit. You call it my hobby, I call it the constitution. Guess which one wins?

 

As I said, I'm MORE than happy to discuss the problems related to the irresponsible misuse of guns. But those problems are all human-related, not inanimate object related.

 

FYI - according to the CDC, the economic cost to society of alcohol related issues cost us $223B per year and 88,000 deaths. Should we have alcohol violence insurance? Be able to sue Budwieser and Jack Daniels for killing ourselves or others with booze? Why is that hobby so many hold so dear ok and not under scrutiny, yet a constitutional right is the end of the fucking world to you?

 

Last I checked 88K > 33K.

 

Gun violence does cost the U.S. an extraordinary amount of money every single year whether it is $70 Billion of $229 Billion. That part of the discussion is set in stone. The part we are discussing is how best to mitigate that cost.

 

Your fall back on the Constitution is faulty also since the discussion centers on responsibility. The premise of the post I made at the top of the thread established that no one should have to surrender or be threatened with the loss of their guns. Just as people who do not own guns should have to share in the burden of gun violence.

 

Mitigating the costs of gun violence, smoking, alcohol abuse, obesity, costs of war, should be open to discussion, a healthier nation should be a desirable result.

 

 

I don't know what the true costs are and frankly I don't care what the number value is. Well, that's not completely true, I do care - but I don't think its significant enough to be outraged over. You are the one who brought up cost trying to use a huge number in order to use emotion to elicit a visceral response - not me.

 

As I said, if you want an honest discussion - the discussion is over mitigating the cost of violence to society. Not gun violence, not knife violence, not rope violence, not broken glass violence, not sharpened unicorn horn violence...... but just plain violence. Because there is no distinction between a violent guy killing his wife with a chainsaw or with a glock - they were both violent acts which resulted in the same outcome. By somehow trying to stigmatize one tool as the "cause" when you would certainly never consider much less use the term "chainsaw violence" - you do a disservice to your cause and to your argument.

 

And you are wrong about society not bearing the cost of gun violence. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. I share in the burden of paying for obesity even though I'm not fat. I am not a smoker but my taxes pay for smoker's health care. I don't drink to excess but my taxes pay for alcoholic's treatment and the other costs of alcoholism to society. My taxes pay for many things which I do not personally partake in nor agree with. So, I'm sorry you don't like guns or feel you should have to support that constitutional right - but you do whether you exercise it or not.

 

Yes, there is a "cost" to society for many things. Having the right to own guns is one of them. Suck it up, fatty. Having the right to own guns means that some people will misuse them and people will be hurt as a result. That is the price of doing business and I'm comfortable with that concept. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't continue to find ways to mitigate that - but unfairly burdening law-abiding and safe gun owners who happen to be the vast majority of the people with guns - is simply a non-starter.

 

Besides, while I concede there is some "cost" to society resulting from the RKBA - there is also a benefit to that as well. Aside from the intangible benefit of ensuring a free nation through an armed citizenry - there is a tangible and calculable benefit of good guys with guns preventing crime, stopping people from being hurt and killed and so one. There is no discussion on mitigation until you add back in that benefit to the calculation. As I said, it may very well be that we are in the + column on that accounting number. Maybe Mother Jones can do an article on that..... yeah, and even-toed ungulates will take flight from my anal orifice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who here is good with numbers? Because I'd love to see the answer to this equation;

 

1). 75,000,000 gun owners in America

 

2). Owning around 325,000,000 firearms

 

3). Divided by a whopping 11,000 'homicides' per annum

 

4). Equals....what?....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we really want to reduce "gun violence", we would end the war on drugs. That is the source of most of our LE costs and most of the violence. It is beyond absurd to think that putting taxes on guns or requiring gun owners to have insurance or allowing people to sue gun companies is going to stop the shootings and homicides that are born out of an underground drug economy. Come on people, you are smarter than this.

 

I am in complete agreement with you on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who here is good with numbers? Because I'd love to see the answer to this equation;

 

1). 75,000,000 gun owners in America

 

2). Owning around 325,000,000 firearms

 

3). Divided by a whopping 11,000 'homicides' per annum

 

4). Equals....what?....

 

Equals much ado about nuthin'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The M/Jones 'article' that you first posted was (if you look real carefully) was merely written by four of their writers......who 'based their research' from some economist named Ted Miller. If you ask me Miller's really reaching in his a quest to pump up his number$....

 

 

 

The Cost of Firearm Violence

Firearm injuries cost $174 billion in the United States in 2010 and the government's firearm injury bill alone exceeded $12 billion. PIRE researcher Ted Miller estimates annual firearm injury costs average $645 per gun in America. The costs include medical and mental health care costs, criminal justice costs, wage losses, and the value of pain, suffering and lost quality of life. Violence - assaults and suicide acts - dominated the costs. These estimates are based on the latest injury data from the Centers for Disease Control and unit costs from the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation's (PIRE) widely cited injury cost model. Data was developed by Ted R Miller, PhD, Principal Research Scientist, Children's Safety Network Economics and Data Analysis Resource Center, at Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, December 2012. All incidence data are from CDC's WISQARS web query system, accessed December 2012.

CostPerFirearm_0.png

CostGovt1_0.png

CostSociety_0.png

CostGovtInjury_0.png

 

 

 

SOURCES

Ted R Miller, PhD, Principal Research Scientist, Children's Safety Network Economics and Data Analysis Resource Center, at Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, December 2012, miller@pire.org, 240-441-2890
All incidence data are from CDC's WISQARS web query system, accessed December 2012.
DEFINITIONS
Medical Care includes payments for hospital and physician care, as well as rehabilitation, prescriptions, allied health services, medical devices, and insurance claims processing. For fatalities, also include coroner and premature burial costs.
Mental Health Care includes payments for services by psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, and pastoral counselors. Also includes insurance claims processing.
Work Loss includes wages, fringe benefits, and household work lost due to death and permanent or temporary disability.
Lost Tax Revenue includes income taxes losses due to wage losses.
Criminal Justice includes criminal justice processing, sanctions, legal defense, and incarceration costs.
Emergency Transport includes ambulance, helicopter, and coroner transport costs.
Police includes costs of police response and investigation.
Criminal Justice includes criminal justice processing, sanctions, legal defense, and incarceration costs.
Insurance Claims Processing is the cost of processing public and/or private health insurance claims.
Employer Cost includes costs of recruiting and training replacements for workers who are killed or permanently disabled and juggling schedules due to temporary disability, as well as workplace disruption talking about firearm incidents.
Quality of Life values the pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life of people who were shot and their families; we did not value fear experienced by people who were not shot.
Direct Cost includes out-of-pocket costs for medical and mental health care, emergency transport, police, criminal justice, and insurance administration.

These estimates were funded by the Health Resources and Services Administration, US Department of Health and Human Services, and by Public Health Law Research, a national program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

 

 

I have absolutely no idea how someone fairly arrives at those numbers. I guess a well funded organization could after years of exhaustive study but an individual, no way, especially when they get into dollars and cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well thems numbers are what Ted Miller uses...and what the four 'investigatoring reporters' at Ma Jones copied for their piece that you posted......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Who here is good with numbers? Because I'd love to see the answer to this equation;

 

1). 75,000,000 gun owners in America

 

2). Owning around 325,000,000 firearms

 

3). Divided by a whopping 11,000 'homicides' per annum

 

4). Equals....what?....

 

Equals much ado about nuthin'

 

 

Listen to yourselves.

Boothy puts quotation marks on gun homicides...while Jeffy says that 11,000 gun homicides per year are nothin'.

Dumbassery.

 

 

Yr Tot Deaths Injuries Total Shot

2000 28,663 75,685 104,348

2001 29,573 63,012 92,585

2002 30,242 58,841 89,083

2003 30,136 65,834 95,970

2004 29,569 64,389 93,958

2005 30,694 69,825 100,519

2006 30,896 71,417 102,313

2007 31,224 69,863 101,087

2008 31,593 78,622 110,215

http://www.vpc.org/studies/wmmw2013.pdf

'09-'13 Gun Deaths Injuries Gun Casualties

2009 31,347 66,789 21.68/100K 98,136

2010 31,67219 73,505 23.7 105,177

2011 32,16318 73,833 23.97 105,996

2012 31,326 10.18 81,396 25.87 112,722

2013 33,383 84,258 26.81 110,700

http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe>

 

Why are rates of firearm homicides here more than 7-fold of those in similar nations ? Is that "nothin'"?

USA 3.6 per 100,000;

Canada, 0.5;

United Kingdom, 0.1;

Australia, 0.1

 

The U.S. has the highest gun homicide rate of 34 industrialized countries – 30 times higher than Australia, France or the United Kingdom.

Source: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. 2011. “Global Study on Homicide.”

Table “Homicide data series to be used for trends analyses.”

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/homicide.html

(accessed January 2012).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe, quiet down. The adults are having a discussion here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Its not a visceral response BL. You have started from a false premise. Gun "violence" does not cost the US $229B. At most its 1/3 of that number. And as I said, the benefit to society from guns also needs to be added back in for there to be an honest discussion.

 

And furthermore, my "hobby" is not CAUSING" or is responsible for jack-shit. You call it my hobby, I call it the constitution. Guess which one wins?

 

As I said, I'm MORE than happy to discuss the problems related to the irresponsible misuse of guns. But those problems are all human-related, not inanimate object related.

 

FYI - according to the CDC, the economic cost to society of alcohol related issues cost us $223B per year and 88,000 deaths. Should we have alcohol violence insurance? Be able to sue Budwieser and Jack Daniels for killing ourselves or others with booze? Why is that hobby so many hold so dear ok and not under scrutiny, yet a constitutional right is the end of the fucking world to you?

 

Last I checked 88K > 33K.

 

Gun violence does cost the U.S. an extraordinary amount of money every single year whether it is $70 Billion of $229 Billion. That part of the discussion is set in stone. The part we are discussing is how best to mitigate that cost.

 

Your fall back on the Constitution is faulty also since the discussion centers on responsibility. The premise of the post I made at the top of the thread established that no one should have to surrender or be threatened with the loss of their guns. Just as people who do not own guns should have to share in the burden of gun violence.

 

Mitigating the costs of gun violence, smoking, alcohol abuse, obesity, costs of war, should be open to discussion, a healthier nation should be a desirable result.

 

 

I don't know what the true costs are and frankly I don't care what the number value is. Well, that's not completely true, I do care - but I don't think its significant enough to be outraged over. You are the one who brought up cost trying to use a huge number in order to use emotion to elicit a visceral response - not me. Even using your own number of a third of 229 billion, over a dozen years we are talking nearly a TRILLION dollars. I think numbers like that deserve some respect and should be discussed.

 

As I said, if you want an honest discussion - the discussion is over mitigating the cost of violence to society. Not gun violence, not knife violence, not rope violence, not broken glass violence, not sharpened unicorn horn violence...... but just plain violence. Because there is no distinction between a violent guy killing his wife with a chainsaw or with a glock - they were both violent acts which resulted in the same outcome. By somehow trying to stigmatize one tool as the "cause" when you would certainly never consider much less use the term "chainsaw violence" - you do a disservice to your cause and to your argument. This thread is dedicated to mitigating the cost of gun violence. If you feel that general violence should be a topic of discussion then create a thread.

 

And you are wrong about society not bearing the cost of gun violence. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. I share in the burden of paying for obesity even though I'm not fat. I am not a smoker but my taxes pay for smoker's health care. I don't drink to excess but my taxes pay for alcoholic's treatment and the other costs of alcoholism to society. My taxes pay for many things which I do not personally partake in nor agree with. So, I'm sorry you don't like guns or feel you should have to support that constitutional right - but you do whether you exercise it or not. In an earlier post you were the one who brought up the cost of alcohol and how we should find a way to make people pay for alcohol insurance. Certainly you would be a wealthier person if you had smaller tax bills, so why not try to mitigate those costs over a broad spectrum? I'm a gun owner and I like guns so trying to lump me in a gun grabber pool is kind of childish of you.

 

Yes, there is a "cost" to society for many things. Having the right to own guns is one of them. Suck it up, fatty. Having the right to own guns means that some people will misuse them and people will be hurt as a result. That is the price of doing business and I'm comfortable with that concept. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't continue to find ways to mitigate that - but unfairly burdening law-abiding and safe gun owners who happen to be the vast majority of the people with guns - is simply a non-starter. Take a break Jeff, if you can't argue while waving a flag and pounding the table maybe you're not up to the task.

 

Besides, while I concede there is some "cost" to society resulting from the RKBA - there is also a benefit to that as well. Aside from the intangible benefit of ensuring a free nation through an armed citizenry - there is a tangible and calculable benefit of good guys with guns preventing crime, stopping people from being hurt and killed and so one. There is no discussion on mitigation until you add back in that benefit to the calculation. As I said, it may very well be that we are in the + column on that accounting number. Maybe Mother Jones can do an article on that..... yeah, and even-toed ungulates will take flight from my anal orifice. See the last comment.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonder how much benefit to $ociety this cab driver provided to America last night?....

 

 

 

Uber driver, licensed to carry gun, shoots gunman in Logan Square

 

By Geoff Ziezulewicz

 

 

 

Chicago Tribunecontact the reporter
Uber driver with licensed gun takes down man firing at crowd, prosecutors say.

Authorities say no charges will be filed against an Uber driver who shot and wounded a gunman who opened fire on a crowd of people in Logan Square over the weekend.

The driver had a concealed-carry permit and acted in the defense of himself and others, Assistant State's Attorney Barry Quinn said in court Sunday.

A group of people had been walking in front of the driver around 11:50 p.m. Friday in the 2900 block of North Milwaukee Avenue when Everardo Custodio, 22, began firing into the crowd, Quinn said.

cComments
  • In a gun-free Chicago, Custodio owns and uses a gun on innocent people!!!! What is going on? I bet the Uber driver jumped through countless hoops and went through rigorous FBI checks before he got his concealed-carry permit. And all Custodio had to do is....? No paperwork for him! What an...
    BIGGOOFER1
    AT 10:51 AM APRIL 21, 2015
ADD A COMMENTSEE ALL COMMENTS
330

The driver pulled out a handgun and fired six shots at Custodio, hitting him several times, according to court records. Responding officers found Custodio lying on the ground, bleeding, Quinn said. No other injuries were reported.

Custodio was taken to Advocate Illinois Masonic hospital, where he was treated for gunshot wounds to the shin, thigh and lower back, authorities said.

Custodio, of the 2900 block of North Ridgeway Avenue, was charged with aggravated assault and unlawful use of a weapon charges. He was denied bond during the Sunday court hearing.

The Uber driver, a 47-year-old resident of Little Italy, provided police with a valid concealed-carry permit and a firearm owner's identification card, Quinn said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Wonder how much benefit to $ociety this cab driver provided to America last night?....

 

 

 

 

Uber driver, licensed to carry gun, shoots gunman in Logan Square

 

By Geoff Ziezulewicz

 

 

 

Chicago Tribunecontact the reporter

Uber driver with licensed gun takes down man firing at crowd, prosecutors say.

 

Authorities say no charges will be filed against an Uber driver who shot and wounded a gunman who opened fire on a crowd of people in Logan Square over the weekend.

The driver had a concealed-carry permit and acted in the defense of himself and others, Assistant State's Attorney Barry Quinn said in court Sunday.

A group of people had been walking in front of the driver around 11:50 p.m. Friday in the 2900 block of North Milwaukee Avenue when Everardo Custodio, 22, began firing into the crowd, Quinn said.

cComments

  • In a gun-free Chicago, Custodio owns and uses a gun on innocent people!!!! What is going on? I bet the Uber driver jumped through countless hoops and went through rigorous FBI checks before he got his concealed-carry permit. And all Custodio had to do is....? No paperwork for him! What an...
    BIGGOOFER1
    AT 10:51 AM APRIL 21, 2015
ADD A COMMENTSEE ALL COMMENTS

330

The driver pulled out a handgun and fired six shots at Custodio, hitting him several times, according to court records. Responding officers found Custodio lying on the ground, bleeding, Quinn said. No other injuries were reported.

Custodio was taken to Advocate Illinois Masonic hospital, where he was treated for gunshot wounds to the shin, thigh and lower back, authorities said.

Custodio, of the 2900 block of North Ridgeway Avenue, was charged with aggravated assault and unlawful use of a weapon charges. He was denied bond during the Sunday court hearing.

The Uber driver, a 47-year-old resident of Little Italy, provided police with a valid concealed-carry permit and a firearm owner's identification card, Quinn said.

 

 

I'd say that's in the + column. Next......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Its not a visceral response BL. You have started from a false premise. Gun "violence" does not cost the US $229B. At most its 1/3 of that number. And as I said, the benefit to society from guns also needs to be added back in for there to be an honest discussion.

 

And furthermore, my "hobby" is not CAUSING" or is responsible for jack-shit. You call it my hobby, I call it the constitution. Guess which one wins?

 

As I said, I'm MORE than happy to discuss the problems related to the irresponsible misuse of guns. But those problems are all human-related, not inanimate object related.

 

FYI - according to the CDC, the economic cost to society of alcohol related issues cost us $223B per year and 88,000 deaths. Should we have alcohol violence insurance? Be able to sue Budwieser and Jack Daniels for killing ourselves or others with booze? Why is that hobby so many hold so dear ok and not under scrutiny, yet a constitutional right is the end of the fucking world to you?

 

Last I checked 88K > 33K.

 

Gun violence does cost the U.S. an extraordinary amount of money every single year whether it is $70 Billion of $229 Billion. That part of the discussion is set in stone. The part we are discussing is how best to mitigate that cost.

 

Your fall back on the Constitution is faulty also since the discussion centers on responsibility. The premise of the post I made at the top of the thread established that no one should have to surrender or be threatened with the loss of their guns. Just as people who do not own guns should have to share in the burden of gun violence.

 

Mitigating the costs of gun violence, smoking, alcohol abuse, obesity, costs of war, should be open to discussion, a healthier nation should be a desirable result.

 

 

I don't know what the true costs are and frankly I don't care what the number value is. Well, that's not completely true, I do care - but I don't think its significant enough to be outraged over. You are the one who brought up cost trying to use a huge number in order to use emotion to elicit a visceral response - not me. Even using your own number of a third of 229 billion, over a dozen years we are talking nearly a TRILLION dollars. I think numbers like that deserve some respect and should be discussed.

 

As I said, if you want an honest discussion - the discussion is over mitigating the cost of violence to society. Not gun violence, not knife violence, not rope violence, not broken glass violence, not sharpened unicorn horn violence...... but just plain violence. Because there is no distinction between a violent guy killing his wife with a chainsaw or with a glock - they were both violent acts which resulted in the same outcome. By somehow trying to stigmatize one tool as the "cause" when you would certainly never consider much less use the term "chainsaw violence" - you do a disservice to your cause and to your argument. This thread is dedicated to mitigating the cost of gun violence. If you feel that general violence should be a topic of discussion then create a thread.

 

And you are wrong about society not bearing the cost of gun violence. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. I share in the burden of paying for obesity even though I'm not fat. I am not a smoker but my taxes pay for smoker's health care. I don't drink to excess but my taxes pay for alcoholic's treatment and the other costs of alcoholism to society. My taxes pay for many things which I do not personally partake in nor agree with. So, I'm sorry you don't like guns or feel you should have to support that constitutional right - but you do whether you exercise it or not. In an earlier post you were the one who brought up the cost of alcohol and how we should find a way to make people pay for alcohol insurance. Certainly you would be a wealthier person if you had smaller tax bills, so why not try to mitigate those costs over a broad spectrum? I'm a gun owner and I like guns so trying to lump me in a gun grabber pool is kind of childish of you.

 

Yes, there is a "cost" to society for many things. Having the right to own guns is one of them. Suck it up, fatty. Having the right to own guns means that some people will misuse them and people will be hurt as a result. That is the price of doing business and I'm comfortable with that concept. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't continue to find ways to mitigate that - but unfairly burdening law-abiding and safe gun owners who happen to be the vast majority of the people with guns - is simply a non-starter. Take a break Jeff, if you can't argue while waving a flag and pounding the table maybe you're not up to the task.

 

Besides, while I concede there is some "cost" to society resulting from the RKBA - there is also a benefit to that as well. Aside from the intangible benefit of ensuring a free nation through an armed citizenry - there is a tangible and calculable benefit of good guys with guns preventing crime, stopping people from being hurt and killed and so one. There is no discussion on mitigation until you add back in that benefit to the calculation. As I said, it may very well be that we are in the + column on that accounting number. Maybe Mother Jones can do an article on that..... yeah, and even-toed ungulates will take flight from my anal orifice. See the last comment.

 

 

 

Who's waving a flag and pounding tables? I'm being very matter of fact and even-keeled here. Maybe you're projecting.

 

And I only brought up the $223B cost to society as a counter-balance to your claim that guns are such a huge problem. And I never proposed that we should have alcohol insurance. I asked YOU if you would follow your own logic and accept that. Well, would you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

Its not a visceral response BL. You have started from a false premise. Gun "violence" does not cost the US $229B. At most its 1/3 of that number. And as I said, the benefit to society from guns also needs to be added back in for there to be an honest discussion.

 

And furthermore, my "hobby" is not CAUSING" or is responsible for jack-shit. You call it my hobby, I call it the constitution. Guess which one wins?

 

As I said, I'm MORE than happy to discuss the problems related to the irresponsible misuse of guns. But those problems are all human-related, not inanimate object related.

 

FYI - according to the CDC, the economic cost to society of alcohol related issues cost us $223B per year and 88,000 deaths. Should we have alcohol violence insurance? Be able to sue Budwieser and Jack Daniels for killing ourselves or others with booze? Why is that hobby so many hold so dear ok and not under scrutiny, yet a constitutional right is the end of the fucking world to you?

 

Last I checked 88K > 33K.

 

Gun violence does cost the U.S. an extraordinary amount of money every single year whether it is $70 Billion of $229 Billion. That part of the discussion is set in stone. The part we are discussing is how best to mitigate that cost.

 

Your fall back on the Constitution is faulty also since the discussion centers on responsibility. The premise of the post I made at the top of the thread established that no one should have to surrender or be threatened with the loss of their guns. Just as people who do not own guns should have to share in the burden of gun violence.

 

Mitigating the costs of gun violence, smoking, alcohol abuse, obesity, costs of war, should be open to discussion, a healthier nation should be a desirable result.

 

 

I don't know what the true costs are and frankly I don't care what the number value is. Well, that's not completely true, I do care - but I don't think its significant enough to be outraged over. You are the one who brought up cost trying to use a huge number in order to use emotion to elicit a visceral response - not me. Even using your own number of a third of 229 billion, over a dozen years we are talking nearly a TRILLION dollars. I think numbers like that deserve some respect and should be discussed.

 

As I said, if you want an honest discussion - the discussion is over mitigating the cost of violence to society. Not gun violence, not knife violence, not rope violence, not broken glass violence, not sharpened unicorn horn violence...... but just plain violence. Because there is no distinction between a violent guy killing his wife with a chainsaw or with a glock - they were both violent acts which resulted in the same outcome. By somehow trying to stigmatize one tool as the "cause" when you would certainly never consider much less use the term "chainsaw violence" - you do a disservice to your cause and to your argument. This thread is dedicated to mitigating the cost of gun violence. If you feel that general violence should be a topic of discussion then create a thread.

 

And you are wrong about society not bearing the cost of gun violence. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. I share in the burden of paying for obesity even though I'm not fat. I am not a smoker but my taxes pay for smoker's health care. I don't drink to excess but my taxes pay for alcoholic's treatment and the other costs of alcoholism to society. My taxes pay for many things which I do not personally partake in nor agree with. So, I'm sorry you don't like guns or feel you should have to support that constitutional right - but you do whether you exercise it or not. In an earlier post you were the one who brought up the cost of alcohol and how we should find a way to make people pay for alcohol insurance. Certainly you would be a wealthier person if you had smaller tax bills, so why not try to mitigate those costs over a broad spectrum? I'm a gun owner and I like guns so trying to lump me in a gun grabber pool is kind of childish of you.

 

Yes, there is a "cost" to society for many things. Having the right to own guns is one of them. Suck it up, fatty. Having the right to own guns means that some people will misuse them and people will be hurt as a result. That is the price of doing business and I'm comfortable with that concept. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't continue to find ways to mitigate that - but unfairly burdening law-abiding and safe gun owners who happen to be the vast majority of the people with guns - is simply a non-starter. Take a break Jeff, if you can't argue while waving a flag and pounding the table maybe you're not up to the task.

 

Besides, while I concede there is some "cost" to society resulting from the RKBA - there is also a benefit to that as well. Aside from the intangible benefit of ensuring a free nation through an armed citizenry - there is a tangible and calculable benefit of good guys with guns preventing crime, stopping people from being hurt and killed and so one. There is no discussion on mitigation until you add back in that benefit to the calculation. As I said, it may very well be that we are in the + column on that accounting number. Maybe Mother Jones can do an article on that..... yeah, and even-toed ungulates will take flight from my anal orifice. See the last comment.

 

 

 

Who's waving a flag and pounding tables? I'm being very matter of fact and even-keeled here. Maybe you're projecting.

 

And I only brought up the $223B cost to society as a counter-balance to your claim that guns are such a huge problem. And I never proposed that we should have alcohol insurance. I asked YOU if you would follow your own logic and accept that. Well, would you?

 

 

I have no problem having a discussion toward accepting responsibility for things that create a societal burden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Yes, I do know how this works as well as you do. People try BS tactics in an effort to make gun ownership more burdensome and expensive. That's how it works, this thread is an example.

 

You said the law had been interpreted to protect manufacturers from defective product liability. Interpretations are done by courts.

 

You posted the text of the law, not any court decision. You also omitted a significant part that reverses the meaning you wanted to see. I added it back in bold and red. Are you hard of reading, or just didn't notice that part, or were you just lying?

 

Most of the "gun violence" cost you want to discuss is from suicides, is it not? That makes suicides the main topic.

 

 

I don't think lawsuits where people try to get a hearing of their personal gripes is BS at all, that's how it works in this country. I don't think making people responsible is burdensome or necessarily more expensive, its about standing up for the cost inflicted upon others.

 

Here's what I know Tom, the PLCAA was a gift to the gun industry there isn't any dispute over that. I don't believe there have been any favorable decisions affecting product liability since the PLCAA was enacted. That should tell you something.

 

I don't see how 20,000 suicides could begin to approach a $229 Billion yearly cost. That doesn't mean that I don't question those numbers I would certainly prefer something more authoritative than "Mother Jones" for sourcing. If you can express "suicide" as the primary contributor to the cost of gun violence with proper sourcing I'll agree to modify my position.

 

 

People can sue gun makers for defective products. You posted the law saying so and have not posted any of the phantom interpretations you said say otherwise. Until I see one, I'm going to assume you made that up.

 

I don't see protection against frivolous lawsuits as a gift at all. It see it as a common sense response to unreasonable hoplophobes.

 

If you're going to complain about the source of the 20k suicides, take it up with the guy who posted it. You'll find him in your nearest mirror.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Yes, I do know how this works as well as you do. People try BS tactics in an effort to make gun ownership more burdensome and expensive. That's how it works, this thread is an example.

 

You said the law had been interpreted to protect manufacturers from defective product liability. Interpretations are done by courts.

 

You posted the text of the law, not any court decision. You also omitted a significant part that reverses the meaning you wanted to see. I added it back in bold and red. Are you hard of reading, or just didn't notice that part, or were you just lying?

 

Most of the "gun violence" cost you want to discuss is from suicides, is it not? That makes suicides the main topic.

 

 

I don't think lawsuits where people try to get a hearing of their personal gripes is BS at all, that's how it works in this country. I don't think making people responsible is burdensome or necessarily more expensive, its about standing up for the cost inflicted upon others.

 

Here's what I know Tom, the PLCAA was a gift to the gun industry there isn't any dispute over that. I don't believe there have been any favorable decisions affecting product liability since the PLCAA was enacted. That should tell you something.

 

I don't see how 20,000 suicides could begin to approach a $229 Billion yearly cost. That doesn't mean that I don't question those numbers I would certainly prefer something more authoritative than "Mother Jones" for sourcing. If you can express "suicide" as the primary contributor to the cost of gun violence with proper sourcing I'll agree to modify my position.

 

 

People can sue gun makers for defective products. You posted the law saying so and have not posted any of the phantom interpretations you said say otherwise. Until I see one, I'm going to assume you made that up. Perhaps you can source the number of successful defective product lawsuits since 2005. I think everyone would find that interesting.

 

I don't see protection against frivolous lawsuits as a gift at all. It see it as a common sense response to unreasonable hoplophobes. I appreciate your take on it, the other side sees it quite differently so the battle will continue I'm sure.

 

If you're going to complain about the source of the 20k suicides, take it up with the guy who posted it. You'll find him in your nearest mirror. I only have a quibble with the amount of cost claimed. I still feel the cost can be mitigated through an insurance program.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Yes, I do know how this works as well as you do. People try BS tactics in an effort to make gun ownership more burdensome and expensive. That's how it works, this thread is an example.

 

You said the law had been interpreted to protect manufacturers from defective product liability. Interpretations are done by courts.

 

You posted the text of the law, not any court decision. You also omitted a significant part that reverses the meaning you wanted to see. I added it back in bold and red. Are you hard of reading, or just didn't notice that part, or were you just lying?

 

Most of the "gun violence" cost you want to discuss is from suicides, is it not? That makes suicides the main topic.

 

 

I don't think lawsuits where people try to get a hearing of their personal gripes is BS at all, that's how it works in this country. I don't think making people responsible is burdensome or necessarily more expensive, its about standing up for the cost inflicted upon others.

 

Here's what I know Tom, the PLCAA was a gift to the gun industry there isn't any dispute over that. I don't believe there have been any favorable decisions affecting product liability since the PLCAA was enacted. That should tell you something.

 

I don't see how 20,000 suicides could begin to approach a $229 Billion yearly cost. That doesn't mean that I don't question those numbers I would certainly prefer something more authoritative than "Mother Jones" for sourcing. If you can express "suicide" as the primary contributor to the cost of gun violence with proper sourcing I'll agree to modify my position.

 

 

People can sue gun makers for defective products. You posted the law saying so and have not posted any of the phantom interpretations you said say otherwise. Until I see one, I'm going to assume you made that up. You make up a lot of stuff yourself, Tom. You could be more careful calling others a liar, since you use dishonest statistical comparisons, misleading, clipped quotations, and repeated denials of the public research funding ban for gun violence study.

 

I don't see protection against frivolous lawsuits as a gift at all. Wayne LaPIerre was gushy on the courthouse steps, said it was a whole new game. It see it as a common sense response to unreasonable hoplophobes. "Hoplophobes" have very solid reasons to focus on guns. You spend much of your time dishonestly refuting those reasons.

 

If you're going to complain about the source of the 20k suicides, take it up with the guy who posted it. You'll find him in your nearest mirror.

 

We'll find Tom in the echo chamber:fingersinearsgunresearchbandoesntexist_z

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

People can sue gun makers for defective products. You posted the law saying so and have not posted any of the phantom interpretations you said say otherwise. Until I see one, I'm going to assume you made that up. ...

 

Perhaps you can source the number of successful defective product lawsuits since 2005. I think everyone would find that interesting.

 

 

I'll get right on that.

 

Just as soon as I see a cite for your claim that the PLCAA has been interpreted to protect manufacturers from liability for defects. As I showed you, the law specifically disallows that possibility. If it happened anyway as you said it did, prove it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

People can sue gun makers for defective products. You posted the law saying so and have not posted any of the phantom interpretations you said say otherwise. Until I see one, I'm going to assume you made that up. ...

 

Perhaps you can source the number of successful defective product lawsuits since 2005. I think everyone would find that interesting.

 

 

I'll get right on that.

 

Just as soon as I see a cite for your claim that the PLCAA has been interpreted to protect manufacturers from liability for defects. As I showed you, the law specifically disallows that possibility. If it happened anyway as you said it did, prove it.

 

 

The case I cited Adames v Beretta, was a good example I thought. The court found in Beretta's favor and was persuaded by their argument that the PLCAA provided a shield. Who in their right mind would accept the courts decision otherwise that the child who used the gun should have known better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/12/robert-farago/breaking-remington-agrees-to-replace-triggers-in-all-model-700-rifles/

 

“America’s oldest gun manufacturer, Remington, has agreed to replace millions of triggers in its most popular product—the Model 700 rifle,” cnbc.com reports. “Under a nationwide settlement filed Friday in a federal court in Missouri, the company is agreeing to replace the triggers in about 7.85 million rifles.” The agreement, which must be approved by a federal judge, follows the Remington recall of tens of thousands of 700’s equipped with X-Mark Pro triggers. Those guns, manufactured since 2006, had “excess bonding agent used in the assembly process” that could cause the guns to “unintentionally discharge.” The new recalls covers all Model 700’s made since 1962. Though likely to cost the company nearly a billion dollars and take years to complete, the agreement may clear the way for Cerberus to off-load The Freedom Group. Watch this space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'd of thunked that Cerberus would have done just a tad bit more research on something that first hit the press like 8 or 12 years ago......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/12/robert-farago/breaking-remington-agrees-to-replace-triggers-in-all-model-700-rifles/

 

“America’s oldest gun manufacturer, Remington, has agreed to replace millions of triggers in its most popular product—the Model 700 rifle,” cnbc.com reports. “Under a nationwide settlement filed Friday in a federal court in Missouri, the company is agreeing to replace the triggers in about 7.85 million rifles.” The agreement, which must be approved by a federal judge, follows the Remington recall of tens of thousands of 700’s equipped with X-Mark Pro triggers. Those guns, manufactured since 2006, had “excess bonding agent used in the assembly process” that could cause the guns to “unintentionally discharge.” The new recalls covers all Model 700’s made since 1962. Though likely to cost the company nearly a billion dollars and take years to complete, the agreement may clear the way for Cerberus to off-load The Freedom Group. Watch this space.

 

Interesting that it only took 24 dead people and 100 serious injuries to convince them to settle. I especially like after all that evidence the judge removed the claims of negligence and fraudulent concealment, I wonder if that was because of the PLCAA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, it is not the reason.

 

I answered your question and note that you did not answer mine. Have you got any examples of holding car companies responsible for criminal misuse of their products?

No. However, you know how this works as well as I do. Just like Roe v Wade, or the implementation of Social Security or Obamacare, someone, sometime, with the correct number of justices willing to listen, anything can be overturned. One thing is for sure, and that is some people will never stop trying to inflict their own ideas on the rest of us. Yes, and I wish you and your elk would just fucking stop for once.

 

Cite or it didn't happen. The Lawful Commerce in Arms Act does not protect them from suits for product defects. Just suits for things like suicides, which are the main topic of this thread.

 

"(5) an action for death, physical injuries or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that where the discharge of the product was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense, then such act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries or property damage; or

 

That definitely does protect them from lawsuits for product defects even when a child does not know the meaning of "volitional"

 

The main topic of the thread was to create a discussion on the best way if any, to mitigate the cost of gun violence.

BL, your logic and reasoning skills are already suspect. You are not helping your case here.

The only thing I advocated was a discussion on how to mitigate the $229 Billion cost of gun violence that happens every year like clockwork and to do that by subjecting those that create that cost with penalties or insurance to mitigate that cost. Nothing I posted that you responded to was untrue or misleading. I suggest it is your own logic and reasoning skills that are suspect here, I completely understand how you might get upset by any one calling for you to be responsible for the hobby that you hold so dear. I don't see anything wrong with that, but only that we need to talk about the problems associated with it. Your visceral response just makes a reasonable discussion more difficult.

Would be interesting to see the breakdown of murderers and assaults by use of guns broken down by first, second, third...offenders. I'm betting there's a means to save some resources there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'd of thunked that Cerberus would have done just a tad bit more research on something that first hit the press like 8 or 12 years ago......

 

They denied, denied, denied for as long as they could. I have a 700, not the Xmark trigger, but there is no way I will be shipping it back to Remington. If I do anything at all, I will be ordering a Timney and dropping it in myself. I got a feeling that if I shipped it to Remington, I would not see it for a decade or more and it would probably have a 12lb pull when I finally did get it back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/12/robert-farago/breaking-remington-agrees-to-replace-triggers-in-all-model-700-rifles/

 

“America’s oldest gun manufacturer, Remington, has agreed to replace millions of triggers in its most popular product—the Model 700 rifle,” cnbc.com reports. “Under a nationwide settlement filed Friday in a federal court in Missouri, the company is agreeing to replace the triggers in about 7.85 million rifles.” The agreement, which must be approved by a federal judge, follows the Remington recall of tens of thousands of 700’s equipped with X-Mark Pro triggers. Those guns, manufactured since 2006, had “excess bonding agent used in the assembly process” that could cause the guns to “unintentionally discharge.” The new recalls covers all Model 700’s made since 1962. Though likely to cost the company nearly a billion dollars and take years to complete, the agreement may clear the way for Cerberus to off-load The Freedom Group. Watch this space.

 

Interesting that it only took 24 dead people and 100 serious injuries to convince them to settle. I especially like after all that evidence the judge removed the claims of negligence and fraudulent concealment, I wonder if that was because of the PLCAA?

 

 

Yeah, well lots of big corps do bad shit. Look at Ford and GM over the years. I don't think you can lay this on the PLCAA. They are still going to be bankrupt or close to it when all is said and done. They are just doing what big shitty faceless corps run by bean counters do, try to screw everyone over for a buck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/12/robert-farago/breaking-remington-agrees-to-replace-triggers-in-all-model-700-rifles/

 

“America’s oldest gun manufacturer, Remington, has agreed to replace millions of triggers in its most popular product—the Model 700 rifle,” cnbc.com reports. “Under a nationwide settlement filed Friday in a federal court in Missouri, the company is agreeing to replace the triggers in about 7.85 million rifles.” The agreement, which must be approved by a federal judge, follows the Remington recall of tens of thousands of 700’s equipped with X-Mark Pro triggers. Those guns, manufactured since 2006, had “excess bonding agent used in the assembly process” that could cause the guns to “unintentionally discharge.” The new recalls covers all Model 700’s made since 1962. Though likely to cost the company nearly a billion dollars and take years to complete, the agreement may clear the way for Cerberus to off-load The Freedom Group. Watch this space.

 

Interesting that it only took 24 dead people and 100 serious injuries to convince them to settle. I especially like after all that evidence the judge removed the claims of negligence and fraudulent concealment, I wonder if that was because of the PLCAA?

 

 

Yeah, well lots of big corps do bad shit. Look at Ford and GM over the years. I don't think you can lay this on the PLCAA. They are still going to be bankrupt or close to it when all is said and done. They are just doing what big shitty faceless corps run by bean counters do, try to screw everyone over for a buck.

 

 

Stand back for a second and consider that 24 deaths and 100 serious injuries caused a judge to withdraw the claims of negligence and fraudulent concealment. That doesn't make any sense in my book and the only reason I can think of is the PLCAA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Under standard product liability law, manufacturers are liable for defect in the design and construction of their products. Tort liability provides a powerful means by which concerned individuals or groups can gain leverage against much wealthier business interests. It is not necessary to win a suit to achieve a change in corporate business and behavior. Often, the threat of lawsuits alone provide a powerful financial incentive to an industry to make its products safer, and reduce the risks associated with the use of their products. Additionally, the liability process can force manufacturers to release internal documents regarding the known risks associated with product use - as occurred with dramatic effect with suits brought against the tobacco industry. The liability process can also create poor publicity for an industry or manufacturer. In broadly restricting civil suits against the gun industry, the federal government took away a potent tool by which consumers can lobby for their safety and well-being.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/14/1178835/-Rolling-Back-Legal-Immunity-for-the-Gun-Industry>

 

“Justice Denied: The Case Against Gun Industry Immunity.”

Joshua Horowitz

(...)BEFORE AND AFTER PLCAA

Prior to the enactment of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, civil litigation encouraged

positive change in the gun industry and compensated victims of violence. Lawsuits against the

gun industry were also a strong tool to pry free otherwise hidden information about marketing

and distribution practices. One important finding revealed by lawsuits launched by municipalities,

including Chicago and New York, was that a small number of gun dealers were the source of a vastly

disproportionate number of crime guns.

Additionally, heads of major gun companies were forced to answer basic questions under oath that

they had long avoided:

In a deposition, under questioning from the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Ugo

Gussalli Beretta, head of the Italian firearms company Beretta, said he believed American

gun dealers had a policy to require people buying large quantities of guns to establish a

legitimate reason for the purchase, saying it was “common sense.” In the United States, of

course, there is no such requirement.95

Finally, product liability lawsuits against manufacturers were responsible for some of the most

important safety improvements in the gun industry, including basic changes like making guns that don’t

accidentally fire when dropped.9615

 

PLCAA: The Gun Industry’s Immunity from Lawsuits

Tort liability plays an important role in injury prevention. In circumstances where legislators have been unwilling to enact regulations to improve safety, dangerous products and careless industry practices are normally held in check by the possibility of civil litigation that enables injured individuals to recover monetarily. As noted above, policies designed to hold gun sellers accountable can curtail the diversion of guns to criminals. Litigation can do the same thing.73 The firearms industry, however, has recently obtained unprecedented immunity from this long-standing system of accountability.

A series of lawsuits in the 1990s held certain members of the firearms industry liable for particularly reckless practices. As a result, the industry began to push legislation in statehouses that limited this avenue of relief. Then, in 2005, after intense lobbying from the gun industry, Congress enacted and President Bush signed a law that gives gun manufacturers and sellers unprecedented nationwide immunity from lawsuits. This law, known as the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act,” requires the dismissal of almost any lawsuit brought against a member of the gun industry for irresponsible or negligent behavior in the business of making or selling guns.74 This law enables gun makers and sellers to market their products in ways that are intended to appeal to criminals and other ineligible purchasers without facing any legal consequences. It also allows the industry to make available increasingly dangerous weapons and to fail to monitor inventory, even in the face of evidence that thousands of guns are being stolen from dealerships and end up in the hands of criminals.

In 2012, the gun industry made an estimated $11.7 billion in sales and $993 million in profits.75 There is no good reason for the firearms industry to receive special treatment in the hands of the law or to be immune from the same kind of civil lawsuits that are used to hold business practices accountable for the injuries they cause.

Pasted from <http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-safety-public-health-policy-recommendations-for-a-more-secure-america/#Immunity>

 

 

NSSF,

To: ALL MEDIA For Immediate Release

October 26, 2005 Showing his continued support for legal reform to protect America's law-abiding businesses and its economy, President Bush today signed into law a bill that will put an end to "junk" lawsuits against the nation's firearms industry. The "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" will block any future lawsuits attempting to hold firearms industry companies liable for the actions of criminals who misuse the industry's lawful products.

"Our industry offers its sincere thanks to the president and Congress for recognizing the importance of this much-needed legislation. This law will not only help protect law-abiding businesses and the jobs of thousands nationwide, but it will also help ensure a positive future for our nation's hunting and shooting traditions and our firearms freedoms," said Doug Painter, president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association representing firearms and ammunition manufacturers. Among those attending today's signing were Doug Painter, president and CEO of NSSF;

Larry Keane, senior vice president and general counsel of NSSF;

Tom Fruechtel, chairman of the Hunting and Shooting Sports Heritage Fund and president and CEO of Leopold and Stevens;

Michael Golden, president and CEO of Smith & Wesson;

Jeff Reh, vice president and general counsel of Beretta USA;

Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox of the National Rifle Association;

Rob Keck, president and CEO of the National Wild Turkey Federation; and

Jeff Crane, president of the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation.

 

aa%20LPCAA%20wayne-lapierre-quote-its-a-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I have absolutely no idea how someone fairly arrives at those numbers. I guess a well funded organization could after years of exhaustive study but an individual, no way, especially when they get into dollars and cents.

 

 

Let's let Mike the Gun Guy comment on the source's numbers.

 

The report breaks things down between direct and indirect costs, the former reflecting such expenses as medical care, policing, emergency services and penal charges (courts and incarceration), the latter reflecting what the researchers call “less tangible” costs, such as lost income, quality of life impacts and labor replacement. I would rather refer to these two categories by the qualitative value of the data, because most of the direct costs can be calculated from governmental budgets covering policing, medical care and penal institutions, whereas the indirect costs are estimates at best, and may or may not be based on any real numbers at all.

 

The direct costs of America’s annual gun carnage is estimated at less than 4% of the $229 billion total, of which incarceration accounted for 94% of the direct cost total for homicides, but only a fraction of that amount for each aggravated assault. Miller and his associates claim that incarceration costs $414,000 per homicide; Cook and Ludwig set the cost at $244,000. Could this number have nearly doubled in 15 years? The overall gun violence costs appear to have more than doubled during the same period, so why not?

Moving from direct to indirect costs presents other types of data issues which I’m not sure are discussed with the sensitivity and acuity which they deserve. The biggest one to me is the attempt to calculate the economic value of a human life which is based primarily on estimates of what that person would have earned had they lived out a normal life term. And even though the report calculates the number to be significantly lower than estimates from various government agencies, any such estimate is based on assumptions about the economy’s long-term performance that may or may not be true. Those of us who watched out 401Ks shrivel in 2007-2008 or got called into the boss’s office at 4 P.M. on a Friday afternoon, know how dangerous it is to attempt to predict any degree of financial or economic performance out beyond the next couple of months.

When it comes to gun violence there’s a moral imperative – thou shalt not kill – which transcends any discussion about numbers even though the gun industry evidently feels that it doesn’t apply to them. The cautions above should not detract at all from the value of this report which reminds us again that the real cost of gun violence, the cost to our humanity and decency, remains to be solved.

Pasted from <http://mikethegunguy.com/2015/04/16/how-much-does-gun-violence-cost-mother-jones-has-a-new-number/>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

People can sue gun makers for defective products. You posted the law saying so and have not posted any of the phantom interpretations you said say otherwise. Until I see one, I'm going to assume you made that up. ...

 

Perhaps you can source the number of successful defective product lawsuits since 2005. I think everyone would find that interesting.

 

 

I'll get right on that.

 

Just as soon as I see a cite for your claim that the PLCAA has been interpreted to protect manufacturers from liability for defects. As I showed you, the law specifically disallows that possibility. If it happened anyway as you said it did, prove it.

 

 

The case I cited Adames v Beretta, was a good example I thought. The court found in Beretta's favor and was persuaded by their argument that the PLCAA provided a shield. Who in their right mind would accept the courts decision otherwise that the child who used the gun should have known better?

 

 

In which post did you cite that case? I must have missed it.

 

I looked it up and don't see how you believe the gun was defective. That looks like just another frivolous lawsuit to me.

 

In its decision in March, the Illinois Supreme Court said that Beretta was not liable for the fatal shooting of Joshua Adames at the hands of 13-year-old Billy Swan. Swan shot his friend while playing with the service weapon of his father, a correctional officer.

 

The parents of Adames brought a suit accusing Beretta of product liability design defect, negligent design, failure to warn and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. Among other things, the suit said that the firearm was dangerous and defective because it didn't incorporate safety features, including personalized gun technology that would have prevented unauthorized users from firing the weapon.

 

 

Lacking a safety feature that is practically non-existent in the market for good reasons is not a "defect" of any kind.

 

I knew not to shoot my friends well before the age of 13. Yes, the kid should have known better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole story is a sad one where the father testified that his son was lying when he said he found the guns in the closet and that they weren't secured and is more poignant when the father also testified that he had not educated the child in the proper use of guns.The kid thought the gun wasn't dangerous with the magazine removed and as it turns out the father was under the same impression and was not aware of this small tidbit either:

 

"David was unaware of a settlement by Beretta in a different case that included an agreement to include either magazine disconnect safeties in all guns sold after January 1, 2001, or a warning label that the firearm is capable of firing when the magazine is not engaged"

 

Duh

 

My Internet is out so I'm relegated to doing this by phone which I don't like to do. I'm headed to a birthday dinner so replies will come later or by phone delayed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you drop out a magazine on any semi-auto I have ever fired, but leave a round in the chamber, you can still fire that round.

 

If the round did NOT fire, I would consider the gun defective.

 

And once again, the lack of a safety feature that is practically non-existent in the market is not a defect.

 

The only semi-auto I have ever fired that had an indicator showing whether a round was in the chamber was a little Beretta that my wife used to own. It would warn you, but not prevent the round from firing.

 

And birthday parties are way more important than our little discussion. Reply later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole story is a sad one where the father testified that his son was lying when he said he found the guns in the closet and that they weren't secured and is more poignant when the father also testified that he had not educated the child in the proper use of guns.The kid thought the gun wasn't dangerous with the magazine removed and as it turns out the father was under the same impression and was not aware of this small tidbit either:

 

"David was unaware of a settlement by Beretta in a different case that included an agreement to include either magazine disconnect safeties in all guns sold after January 1, 2001, or a warning label that the firearm is capable of firing when the magazine is not engaged"

 

Duh

 

My Internet is out so I'm relegated to doing this by phone which I don't like to do. I'm headed to a birthday dinner so replies will come later or by phone delayed.

 

The sad part of the story is that the parent didn't bother to educate the son on the 4 simple rules. Its not rocket science. My father kept a 1911 in his sock drawer when I was a kid and I was allowed to get it out and practice dry firing if I wanted and to even occasionally take it to the nearby range to shoot after school. And this was in middle school. The gun, having been designed in 1911, had no new fangled technology or safety warnings. And yet somehow I managed to not shoot myself or my friends. I still have the gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who here is good with numbers? Because I'd love to see the answer to this equation;

 

1). 75,000,000 gun owners in America

 

2). Owning around 325,000,000 firearms

 

3). Divided by a whopping 11,000 'homicides' per annum

 

4). Equals....what?....

 

Does your data source do the same charts for tobacco and alcohol?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...

 

The sad part of the story is that the parent didn't bother to educate the son on the 4 simple rules. Its not rocket science. My father kept a 1911 in his sock drawer when I was a kid and I was allowed to get it out and practice dry firing if I wanted and to even occasionally take it to the nearby range to shoot after school. And this was in middle school. The gun, having been designed in 1911, had no new fangled technology or safety warnings. And yet somehow I managed to not shoot myself or my friends. I still have the gun.

 

 

It strikes me the same as having a swimming pool and kids that can't swim.

 

Even if you don't have a pool, it's probably a good idea to teach kids to swim, yet not all learn. My grandmother went to her grave terrified of water and unable to swim.

 

Even if you don't have a gun, it's probably a good idea to teach kids how to handle them safely, or at least teach them to not touch it at all and call an adult.

 

I said above that the kid should have known better, but I don't blame the kid for that any more than I'd blame a kid who drowned because his parents had a pool and never taught him to swim. Blaming the company that put in the pool seems as misplaced as blaming the gun maker for this incident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you drop out a magazine on any semi-auto I have ever fired, but leave a round in the chamber, you can still fire that round.

 

If the round did NOT fire, I would consider the gun defective.

 

And once again, the lack of a safety feature that is practically non-existent in the market is not a defect.

 

The only semi-auto I have ever fired that had an indicator showing whether a round was in the chamber was a little Beretta that my wife used to own. It would warn you, but not prevent the round from firing.

 

And birthday parties are way more important than our little discussion. Reply later.

 

The flaw in your argument is the settlement that Beretta made. But I agree with you. The case summary is a good read I suggest you try to read when you have time. It is too long to post here. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/il-court-of-appeals/1101052.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The whole story is a sad one where the father testified that his son was lying when he said he found the guns in the closet and that they weren't secured and is more poignant when the father also testified that he had not educated the child in the proper use of guns.The kid thought the gun wasn't dangerous with the magazine removed and as it turns out the father was under the same impression and was not aware of this small tidbit either:

 

"David was unaware of a settlement by Beretta in a different case that included an agreement to include either magazine disconnect safeties in all guns sold after January 1, 2001, or a warning label that the firearm is capable of firing when the magazine is not engaged"

 

Duh

 

My Internet is out so I'm relegated to doing this by phone which I don't like to do. I'm headed to a birthday dinner so replies will come later or by phone delayed.

 

The sad part of the story is that the parent didn't bother to educate the son on the 4 simple rules. Its not rocket science. My father kept a 1911 in his sock drawer when I was a kid and I was allowed to get it out and practice dry firing if I wanted and to even occasionally take it to the nearby range to shoot after school. And this was in middle school. The gun, having been designed in 1911, had no new fangled technology or safety warnings. And yet somehow I managed to not shoot myself or my friends. I still have the gun.

 

 

Agree, the fact that the father was a trained police officer made me wonder why he didn't. I also was a little ticked by the police who tried to discipline the father who prevailed and was found not guilty of improperly storing weapons. They confiscated his guns and didn't give them back even after being found innocent. Cops can be pricks to their own too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cops can be pricks to their own too.

 

 

Not according to spatial troll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The whole story is a sad one where the father testified that his son was lying when he said he found the guns in the closet and that they weren't secured and is more poignant when the father also testified that he had not educated the child in the proper use of guns.The kid thought the gun wasn't dangerous with the magazine removed and as it turns out the father was under the same impression and was not aware of this small tidbit either:

 

"David was unaware of a settlement by Beretta in a different case that included an agreement to include either magazine disconnect safeties in all guns sold after January 1, 2001, or a warning label that the firearm is capable of firing when the magazine is not engaged"

 

Duh

 

My Internet is out so I'm relegated to doing this by phone which I don't like to do. I'm headed to a birthday dinner so replies will come later or by phone delayed.

 

The sad part of the story is that the parent didn't bother to educate the son on the 4 simple rules. Its not rocket science. My father kept a 1911 in his sock drawer when I was a kid and I was allowed to get it out and practice dry firing if I wanted and to even occasionally take it to the nearby range to shoot after school. And this was in middle school. The gun, having been designed in 1911, had no new fangled technology or safety warnings. And yet somehow I managed to not shoot myself or my friends. I still have the gun.

 

I'll bet I can still field strip it.....blindfolded..........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just ran some numbers, and as it turns out, my guns save the environment from 1500kg of CO2 emissions every year, not to mention helping to reduce traffic accidents and reducing auto insurance costs. They have not contributed to any costs, and so are a net positive for the average American's quality of life. You are welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you drop out a magazine on any semi-auto I have ever fired, but leave a round in the chamber, you can still fire that round.

 

If the round did NOT fire, I would consider the gun defective.

 

And once again, the lack of a safety feature that is practically non-existent in the market is not a defect.

 

The only semi-auto I have ever fired that had an indicator showing whether a round was in the chamber was a little Beretta that my wife used to own. It would warn you, but not prevent the round from firing.

 

And birthday parties are way more important than our little discussion. Reply later.

 

The flaw in your argument is the settlement that Beretta made. But I agree with you. The case summary is a good read I suggest you try to read when you have time. It is too long to post here. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/il-court-of-appeals/1101052.html

 

 

I don't see how the settlement is a flaw in my argument, nor even really relevant. Settling can be a good business decision regardless of who is right or wrong. That's the nature of frivolous lawsuits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If you drop out a magazine on any semi-auto I have ever fired, but leave a round in the chamber, you can still fire that round.

 

If the round did NOT fire, I would consider the gun defective.

 

And once again, the lack of a safety feature that is practically non-existent in the market is not a defect.

 

The only semi-auto I have ever fired that had an indicator showing whether a round was in the chamber was a little Beretta that my wife used to own. It would warn you, but not prevent the round from firing.

 

And birthday parties are way more important than our little discussion. Reply later.

 

The flaw in your argument is the settlement that Beretta made. But I agree with you. The case summary is a good read I suggest you try to read when you have time. It is too long to post here. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/il-court-of-appeals/1101052.html

 

 

I don't see how the settlement is a flaw in my argument, nor even really relevant. Settling can be a good business decision regardless of who is right or wrong. That's the nature of frivolous lawsuits.

 

 

You seem to have been convinced that "the lack of a safety feature that is practically non-existent in the market is not a defect." That's a pretty convincing statement, but remains a flaw because the company ceded to the settlement. if it was that convincing an argument they would have prevailed. No one spends millions of dollars unnecessarily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A "chamber loaded indicator" is a really thin bullshit red herring.

 

No need to "look" @ anything.

 

A simple slide of index finger over extractor.

 

 

Here's more Private Airplne Violence.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/1-injured-plane-crash-troup-county/nkzwb/

 

? would a "Deadly Weapon" sticker on the door have prevented this ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A "chamber loaded indicator" is a really thin bullshit red herring.

 

No need to "look" @ anything.

 

A simple slide of index finger over extractor.

 

 

Here's more Private Airplne Violence.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/1-injured-plane-crash-troup-county/nkzwb/

 

? would a "Deadly Weapon" sticker on the door have prevented this ?

 

Well I agree, yet a major gun company ceded that it was proper to have stickers. Go figure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jfc, next time you're at a gun store, just check out the later models. Most of 'em the entire fuking 65 page user's manual stamped on the barrel....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites