Quote: thedoctor said: You didn't originally come up with that analogy; but you did try to argue around it. Unsuccesfully, I might add. The car analogy as was originally offered is good because it reflect a duplicate application of how you'd like negligence to be used in civil proceedings. People on this board that I remember argueing for stricter gun laws are against your interpretation of the law. I'm not saying that your overall belief is wrong; but the avenue of debate that you're trying to use to justify your position is.
I recall that I mentioned autos to illustrate the positve effect of litigation in improving car safety. It puts the onus of enforcement on the industry and away from legislative initiative. I never said that guns were defective. Only that a prudent person could forsee the consequinces of the commerce there in. That is the point of negligence.
In previous post I asked the question 'Why should the taxpayers (you & I) be expected to bear the cost of gun violence while the arms industry profits? The post about market externalities was completely avoided except to say that it would increase the black market for guns! You don't like the insurance idea, fine. The revenues can also be collected through taxes and tariffs.
Why should the taxpayers (you & I) be expected to bear the cost of gun violence while the arms industry profits?
Why should the taxpayers (you & I) be expected to bear the cost of gun violence while the arms industry profits?
Answer the goddamn question!
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives."John Stuart MillAmerica is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.Oscar WildeHe who dies with the most toys is nonetheless dead.
