Pro-gun article

Schneed's not here when you need him..
Giants...Suck!



Hold on, I'll go find you a tampon and a Midol .

Hold on, I'll go find you a tampon and a Midol .

Just look in your medicine cabinet, I'm sure you have plenty left over from the past football season.

Hold on, I'll go find you a tampon and a Midol .
Appreciate the offer.....you may want to hang on to it as the Midol will help with your headache, the Tampon will help soak up your tears.
the season is just around the corner........

Just look in your medicine cabinet, I'm sure you have plenty left over from the past football season.

Not the forum jr.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/opinion/make-gun-companies-pay-blood-money.html?_r=2&

Make Gun Companies Pay Blood Money
GUN manufacturers have gone to great lengths to avoid any moral responsibility or legal accountability for the social costs of gun violence — the deaths and injuries of innocent victims, families torn apart, public resources spent on gun-related crime and medical expenses incurred.

But there is a simple and direct way to make them accountable for the harm their products cause. For every gun sold, those who manufacture or import it should pay a tax. The money should then be used to create a compensation fund for innocent victims of gun violence.
This proposal is based on a fundamentally conservative principle — that those who cause injury should be made to “internalize” the cost of their activity by paying for it. Now, gun manufacturers and sellers are mostly protected from lawsuits by federal law.
As it happens, a model for this approach already exists. Under the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html), those injured by vaccines are eligible for compensation from a fund financed by an excise tax on the sale of every dose of vaccine. In creating this no-fault system in the 1980s, Congress sought to provide care for those injured by vaccines while protecting manufacturers from undue litigation

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

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/opinion/make-gun-companies-pay-blood-money.html?_r=2&

Make Gun Companies Pay Blood Money
GUN manufacturers have gone to great lengths to avoid any moral responsibility or legal accountability for the social costs of gun violence — the deaths and injuries of innocent victims, families torn apart, public resources spent on gun-related crime and medical expenses incurred.

But there is a simple and direct way to make them accountable for the harm their products cause. For every gun sold, those who manufacture or import it should pay a tax. The money should then be used to create a compensation fund for innocent victims of gun violence.
This proposal is based on a fundamentally conservative principle — that those who cause injury should be made to “internalize” the cost of their activity by paying for it. Now, gun manufacturers and sellers are mostly protected from lawsuits by federal law.
As it happens, a model for this approach already exists. Under the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html), those injured by vaccines are eligible for compensation from a fund financed by an excise tax on the sale of every dose of vaccine. In creating this no-fault system in the 1980s, Congress sought to provide care for those injured by vaccines while protecting manufacturers from undue litigation

More Death By Texting (http://autos.aol.com/article/more-death-by-texting/)
http://post.jagran.com/texting-while-driving-increasing-death-toll-on-the-roads-1372071476
Yahoo! (http://autos.yahoo.com/news/distracted-walking-3-5-pedestrians-texting-141300347.html)
Cell Phone Accident Statistics and Texting While Driving Facts (http://www.edgarsnyder.com/car-accident/cell-phone/cell-phone-statistics.html)
Distracted Driving | Facts and Stats | Texting and Driving (http://www.distraction.gov/content/get-the-facts/facts-and-statistics.html)

Will you also advocate the same for Cell Phones....Cars....Pedestrians?
The studies are...Endless and Conclusive....Cell Phones kill
I wonder how Chevy....IPHONE....will feel about paying "Blood Money"?

What cops think:
(http://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislation-Law-Enforcement/articles/6183787-PoliceOnes-Gun-Control-Survey-11-key-findings-on-officers-thoughts/)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But what would they know, eh?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/24/opinion/make-gun-companies-pay-blood-money.html?_r=2&

Make Gun Companies Pay Blood Money
GUN manufacturers have gone to great lengths to avoid any moral responsibility or legal accountability for the social costs of gun violence — the deaths and injuries of innocent victims, families torn apart, public resources spent on gun-related crime and medical expenses incurred.

But there is a simple and direct way to make them accountable for the harm their products cause. For every gun sold, those who manufacture or import it should pay a tax. The money should then be used to create a compensation fund for innocent victims of gun violence.
This proposal is based on a fundamentally conservative principle — that those who cause injury should be made to “internalize” the cost of their activity by paying for it. Now, gun manufacturers and sellers are mostly protected from lawsuits by federal law.
As it happens, a model for this approach already exists. Under the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html), those injured by vaccines are eligible for compensation from a fund financed by an excise tax on the sale of every dose of vaccine. In creating this no-fault system in the 1980s, Congress sought to provide care for those injured by vaccines while protecting manufacturers from undue litigation

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

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

at least for me, I am a big fan of that fund and who ever thought of the idea. the comparison is not apples to apples though as technically a gun manufacturer hasnt done anything illegal or wrong . . i guess the argument would be that they, in manufacturing the gun as an intended killing weapon, contributed to the act of killing.

CBS 6 EXCLUSIVE: Police take guns from armed Obama protester | WTVR.com (http://wtvr.com/2013/08/27/constitutionalist-carries-assault-rifle-protests-obama/)

These are some of the looneys the Tea Party attracts. Who in their right mind perches up on the overpass with an assault rifle?