Why does this topic never comes up when comes to guns?

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
Exactly. They are doing this to avoid responsibility for their product.

This is typically how all industrial manufactures go to market. They sell to distributors and may have secondary or tertiary layers as selling directly to the end users is beyond their infrastructure ability to handle.

my reply too this is i don,t see any laws needed for guns and think most of the familys that have lost a loved one agree

may as well talk to yourself tho if your trying to put that across cause way i see it is as long as i,ve a gun then i,ll shoot anyone i want to.

its my natural right to.

what a load of b***ocks.

a reply to: Onslaught2996

I'll stick with soda on this one.

Soda manufacturers don't sell directly to the public. Manufacturers sell to distributers who then sell to dealers which then sell to the end users. Unlike firearms, the only determining factor to see who can buy a soda from a dealer is if they have enough money to afford it.

Just stop, already.

originally posted by: Feltrick
a reply to: Onslaught2996

Interesting perspective but the OP is about the monetary cost of gun violence on society. Obesity and Tobacco are costing this nation far more in health care costs than gun violence. I and other posters have proved that point. I would guess that's why you're trying to change the topic of the discussion...Oh well, I'll play.

You are correct...or are you? What about the salesman who has a soda machine in the school, he is contributing to the obesity and health care cost of those students. I mean, sure, he's not "forcing" them to drink that liquid death but he is making it available for anyone...even those who are already overweight. If a gun manufacturer just left guns in the school and allowed anyone to take it you'd be upset about that, right? But soda? No, it's up to the kids to be responsible and not drink it.

First the topic of the thread is gun violence and the cost to the taxpayers...nothing was changed. The gun advocates are trying to change the topic not me.

Second, yes if you think he is also responsible for the obese...the liability there also.

STAY ON TOPIC PEOPLE..GUN VIOLENCE AND THE COST TO TAXPAYERS.

This is not a health care comparison thread. It is about why this topic is never brought up and should someone be held responsible, since they love to scream about why they should have to pay for others mistakes..etc. Why is this difference..gun violence is costing you..and yet you have no problem footing the bill for it. Other things though..the same people debating for it, would be whining about having to pay for others problems.

a reply to: solomons path

Your engaging in "special pleading" . . . which, is a logical fallacy.

Yeah it is since anything can be 'misused'. Which opens up a whole can of worms. That we don't want.

Then there is the other part of that equation of who, and what gets to do that defining.

Hell we already see it in action with the EPA.

The planet is being 'misused'.

originally posted by: solomons path

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
a reply to: solomons path

When the thread is about those other industries then I will bytch about them..

But this is about gun violence and the health care costs.

Yes I believe if more companies were held responsible for the damage they cause, maybe more would be done..education, how their product is made..etc.

So, what you are saying is you don't care about the causation for violence in this nation . . . you simply want guns gone and those that work in that industry punished?

If you are not interested in facts and the truth . . . just come out and say so. Why the intellectual dishonesty?

Stop trying to change the topic of the thread for the last time. Read carefully..I also said that other companies with other products should be also held responsible for the damage they cause, but this thread is not about that...now is it.

originally posted by: Feltrick
a reply to: Onslaught2996

I'll stick with soda on this one.

Soda manufacturers don't sell directly to the public. Manufacturers sell to distributers who then sell to dealers which then sell to the end users. Unlike firearms, the only determining factor to see who can buy a soda from a dealer is if they have enough money to afford it.

Just stop, already.

All I have for you is a *sigh*

Not going into detail since the last one got my post removed.

a reply to: Onslaught2996

Okay, to be back on topic which you strayed off....

The reason that the cost of gun violence is not brought up is that it is TRIVIAL in comparison to Obesity, Tobacco, Drunk Driving, etc. etc. etc.

Why aren't we doing more about alcohol? The cost of excessive alcohol consumption in the United States reached $223.5 billion in 2006! Again, the Public health care cost of alcohol is massive when compared to Gun Violence. What aren't you getting about this?

originally posted by: Onslaught2996

originally posted by: Feltrick
a reply to: Onslaught2996

Interesting perspective but the OP is about the monetary cost of gun violence on society. Obesity and Tobacco are costing this nation far more in health care costs than gun violence. I and other posters have proved that point. I would guess that's why you're trying to change the topic of the discussion...Oh well, I'll play.

You are correct...or are you? What about the salesman who has a soda machine in the school, he is contributing to the obesity and health care cost of those students. I mean, sure, he's not "forcing" them to drink that liquid death but he is making it available for anyone...even those who are already overweight. If a gun manufacturer just left guns in the school and allowed anyone to take it you'd be upset about that, right? But soda? No, it's up to the kids to be responsible and not drink it.

First the topic of the thread is gun violence and the cost to the taxpayers...nothing was changed. The gun advocates are trying to change the topic not me.

Second, yes if you think he is also responsible for the obese...the liability there also.

STAY ON TOPIC PEOPLE..GUN VIOLENCE AND THE COST TO TAXPAYERS.

This is not a health care comparison thread. It is about why this topic is never brought up and should someone be held responsible, since they love to scream about why they should have to pay for others mistakes..etc. Why is this difference..gun violence is costing you..and yet you have no problem footing the bill for it. Other things though..the same people debating for it, would be whining about having to pay for others problems.

So this "freedom" is costing money.

So we should curtail this freedom because it costs a certain amount?

If it is cheaper than a predetermined amount, then would we be allowed to keep this freedom?

originally posted by: Feltrick
a reply to: Onslaught2996

Okay, to be back on topic which you strayed off....

The reason that the cost of gun violence is not brought up is that it is TRIVIAL in comparison to Obesity, Tobacco, Drunk Driving, etc. etc. etc.

Why aren't we doing more about alcohol? The cost of excessive alcohol consumption in the United States reached $223.5 billion in 2006! Again, the Public health care cost of alcohol is massive when compared to Gun Violence. What aren't you getting about this?

*sigh* Did you even the the opening post? Did you read the questions? Or are you purposefully trying to derail it by going another way?

Once again..

Are people really OK with these numbers?

Should gun manufacturers be held liable for these injuries? How about gun owners?

Why should people who want nothing to do with guns be paying out of their own pockets to cover these bills for others?

See nothing was changed. Only by you and others....when I start a topic on those other things...then bring them up.

a reply to: Onslaught2996

I ask this honestly. Why should companies be held liable for the crap that the main stream public crams down their throat...or lungs...or what they put into their hands...or drive...or what have you.

The warnings are all there. Out in public for all to see.

Are we now supposed to protect the stupid at the competent's expense?

a reply to: beezzer

So this "freedom" is costing money.

Money that is printed out of thin air.

Borrowed from other countries.

Taken from worthless pieces of paper called treasuries.

Collected from dracronian taxes.

Money essentially has no intrinisic value other than what people place on it.

But hey give up freedom over literally nothing.

Because money is nothing.

originally posted by: beezzer

So this "freedom" is costing money.

So we should curtail this freedom because it costs a certain amount?

If it is cheaper than a predetermined amount, then would we be allowed to keep this freedom?

I really don't care if you have guns or not(well for this thread).

I asked a few questions which no one is answering.

Why cry about paying out of your own pockets for one thing eg..another's health care and then have totally different POV for this one.

originally posted by: Onslaught2996

originally posted by: beezzer

So this "freedom" is costing money.

So we should curtail this freedom because it costs a certain amount?

If it is cheaper than a predetermined amount, then would we be allowed to keep this freedom?

I really don't care if you have guns or not(well for this thread).

I asked a few questions which no one is answering.

Why cry about paying out of your own pockets for one thing eg..another's health care and then have totally different POV for this one.

And yet you won't answer my questions. I'm putting this into perspective.

YOU were the one who started the thread about cost.

originally posted by: TDawgRex
a reply to: Onslaught2996

I ask this honestly. Why should companies be held liable for the crap that the main stream public crams down their throat...or lungs...or what they put into their hands...or drive...or what have you.

The warnings are all there. Out in public for all to see.

Are we now supposed to protect the stupid at the competent's expense?

Exactly..why should non gun owners have to pay out of their own pockets for another's hospital costs caused by guns.

(yes neo...guns don't yadda yadda)

Should non gun owners have to foot the bill? Should they have to pay part of the billions due to a tool they wanted nothing to with in the first place.

a reply to: Onslaught2996

When will breweries and distilleries be held liable for those killed by drunk drivers?

When will manufacturers of soft drinks be held liable for those who've died from diabetes and obesity?

Those two are costing this country more than gun violence!

Why should I have to pay the health care costs of someone who had a heart attack because they ate too much fast food?

a reply to: Onslaught2996

Considering the US government is the largest healthcare insurer in this country.

And the majority of people in this country aren't paying for it.

WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE ?

originally posted by: Onslaught2996

originally posted by: TDawgRex
a reply to: Onslaught2996

I ask this honestly. Why should companies be held liable for the crap that the main stream public crams down their throat...or lungs...or what they put into their hands...or drive...or what have you.

The warnings are all there. Out in public for all to see.

Are we now supposed to protect the stupid at the competent's expense?

Exactly..why should non gun owners have to pay out of their own pockets for another's hospital costs caused by guns.

(yes neo...guns don't yadda yadda)

Should non gun owners have to foot the bill? Should they have to pay part of the billions due to a tool they wanted nothing to with in the first place.

If you feel that cheated. Buy yourself a gun. Then, you won't feel like we gun owners are somehow pulling something over on you....

But, make sure to go after the people who own cars, and those who make cars too. It appears you aren't happy unless you are complaining about someone taking some pennies out of your pocket.

Des

originally posted by: beezzer


So this "freedom" is costing money.

So we should curtail this freedom because it costs a certain amount?

If it is cheaper than a predetermined amount, then would we be allowed to keep this freedom?

I never once said anything about you losing or limiting your 2nd amendment right. It is you and others who have brought that topic up...go back and read everything..not once did I say ban guns..limit guns..etc.

I asked should someone be held responsible for these costs? Is it it OK for all taxpayers to foot the bill...or only those want guns?

My point was this...why are the same people arguing for guns..not outraged that they are footing the bill for others stupidity? Yet would fight tooth and nail against paying for other things.

a reply to: Onslaught2996

Are people really OK with these numbers?

Yes.

Should gun manufacturers be held liable for these injuries?

No.

How about gun owners?

Maybe. Depends on circumstances. The question is way to generalized.

Why should people who want nothing to do with guns be paying out of their own pockets to cover these bills for others?

How are other people "paying" ? They already pay for criminal arrests and prosecutions.



I think the "People" are paying their own way because they probably have insurance if they own a gun.

Costs of criminal gun involvement is no different than any other cost criminal acts.

Many gun injuries are caused by criminals.