Economy

Dog Gone at Penigma

(433 posts)

18. That in NOT a problem

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 07:06 PM

Dec 2012

it is not a requirement for gun control, it is not a requirement for taxation or for mandatory liability insurance.

I'm not sure where you get such a silly notion, but there is no basis for it.

All one has to show is that people are injured or their property is damaged without them being compensated, or that there is a larger economic interest at stake. That is more than addressed by the Businessweek artiicle and the CDC stats on the costs of firearm violence. It doesn't matter if that is accidental or deliberate in the slightest, or criminal or non-criminal, and it certainly does not depend in any way on the distinction between kinds of firearms.

Last warning - comply with the economy group SoP.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

36 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

guns and the social economics of mandatory liability insurance and taxation [View all] Dog Gone at Penigma Dec 2012 OP

How about drone insurance? westerebus Dec 2012 #1

Do you own a drone that is weapons capable? Dog Gone at Penigma Dec 2012 #14

No more than the OP wandered into the all inclusive guns be evil debate. westerebus Dec 2012 #20

you are incorrect Dog Gone at Penigma Dec 2012 #35

Already addressed the liability issue re: governmental immunity on par with uninsured motorist. westerebus Dec 2012 #36

FBI reports "Hands, fists, feet, etc." commit 5.7% of murders, Rifles and Shotguns for 5.4%. jody Dec 2012 #2

This message was self-deleted by its author mbperrin Dec 2012 #3

Your problem is you believe guns create crime and the FACT that other things cause jody Dec 2012 #4

This message was self-deleted by its author mbperrin Dec 2012 #5

1. NO. 2. where is economics in any way part of your contribution to this discussion? Dog Gone at Penigma Dec 2012 #12

This message was self-deleted by its author mbperrin Dec 2012 #21

all guns should be both insured and taxed Dog Gone at Penigma Dec 2012 #23

This message was self-deleted by its author mbperrin Dec 2012 #22

I"m one of the hosts for the economy group, so YES i will take on the 'moderator' role, as you call Dog Gone at Penigma Dec 2012 #24

Not at all - it is only necessary to establish that guns are part of some crime Dog Gone at Penigma Dec 2012 #10

You say "we have established that firearms are a problem" is as ridiculous as saying "we have jody Dec 2012 #13

not at all Dog Gone at Penigma Dec 2012 #25

There can be no economic effect if guns do not create crime. Fact is gun # has jody Dec 2012 #30

actually, let me amend that - it is not necessary to establish or prove crime at all to tax/insure Dog Gone at Penigma Dec 2012 #17

You have an OP problem it lumped all firearms together. nt jody Dec 2012 #6

That in NOT a problem Dog Gone at Penigma Dec 2012 #18

"Last warning" LOL Dog Gone at Penigma with 269 posts. nt jody Dec 2012 #19

are you being humorous? Dog Gone at Penigma Dec 2012 #8

Murder is not humorous to me but proposals that are utterly ridiculous do have a sad humor to them jody Dec 2012 #11

violence is not humorous either Dog Gone at Penigma Dec 2012 #15

"on topic for this subject" after you answer #2 nt jody Dec 2012 #16

Any constitutionally protected right may not be impeded by taxation Yo_Mama Dec 2012 #7

not true Dog Gone at Penigma Dec 2012 #9

So we can have a poll tax then? Remmah2 Dec 2012 #29

false equivalency Dog Gone at Penigma Dec 2012 #31

We can pass an amendment for a poll tax then. Remmah2 Dec 2012 #33

In theory - yes Dog Gone at Penigma Dec 2012 #34

Should drinkers and drug users have liability insurance before being served? Remmah2 Dec 2012 #26

don't be silly Dog Gone at Penigma Dec 2012 #27

SOP Remmah2 Dec 2012 #28

and the 24th amendment outlawing any poll tax mean that there is no impediment to other taxation Dog Gone at Penigma Dec 2012 #32