Can capitalism help solve the gun problem?

This is an interesting argument coming from Rob Cox, a columnist with Reuters.

He states that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a fine example of crony capitalism which effectively shields gunmakers from what may be the single most forceful source of discipline in American capitalism: the rule of law.

"The National Rifle Association called the PLCAA “the most significant piece of pro-gun legislation in twenty years” when it was passed. The law was an attempt by Congress to pick one industry – one with a ferociously successful lobbying organization – as a winner, effectively subsidizing its activities by sheltering it from legal action. That is crony capitalism, just the kind of government assistance GOP candidates rail against."

He believes that by allowing the free market to work on gunmakers and distributers it would create an economic incentive to ensure that their products don’t wind up in the wrong hands. Plaintiffs with reasonable grievances would be able to hold manufacturers to greater account through the courts. Companies in other industries adopt better practices and safety standards to protect themselves and their shareholders from the threat of litigation and large damage awards.

"Start with the introduction of safety features including radio-frequency identification systems or biometric trigger locks like those on an iPhone, preventing unauthorized use of a firearm by anyone other than its rightful owner. With safety established as a unique selling point, what might be called the Volvo of guns could even emerge, leading a shift away from marketing that almost exclusively emphasizes the lethal capabilities of firearms."

Cox: Capitalism can help solve the gun problem

I was not aware that US gun manufacturers were protected by law against litigation. Personally the idea makes sense but equally it would be like having kitchen knife manufacturers protected from knife crime. The idea is basic common sense which does not require a law in my opinion.

I think his argument on gun safety as a capitalist incentive has merit. What do others think?

a reply to: deliberator

I don't think any industry should have to be protected from litigation when someone buys their product and uses it for ill intent.

When you are talking about cars and safety, you are talking about a car's features when you are in it and directly driving it.

When you are talking about the gun, you are not talking about how if I buy the gun, it blows up in my hand and injures me when I try to use it because it is a poorly constructed piece of crap. You are talking about how someone takes that gun and decides to use it for ill intent. In that instance, the gun could be working perfectly, but it doesn't have a say in how it gets used.

Certainly, the gun manufacturer could make the "safest" gun around, one that only works for the person who buys it, and when that person uses it for ill intent, what then? Is the manufacturer still at fault for what the "gun" did?

No.

They cannot help what use their guns are put to the same way no one sues Toyota when a person uses a Tundra to mow down 15 or 20 people in a crowd. The Tundra may be perfectly safe and working perfectly as intended, but Toyota bears no blame for the use the driver decides to put the perfectly functioning vehicle.

a reply to: deliberator

it would be like having kitchen knife manufacturers protected from knife crime.

Can you give me an example of a knife manufacturer that was held accountable for negligence on the part of their customers?

If someone bought a cake from a bakery and tainted it with arsenic, should the baker be responsible?

No. Logic fail.

Capitalism doesn't solve any problems it incentivizes greed and selfishness.

a reply to: deliberator

Sure, sounds like a good idea. We should do it.

Right after we tell every single other entity that they can and will be sued anytime their product is used for ill intent.

Screwdriver to the ear? Boom, sue Sears and craftsman.

Got hit with a bat? Congrats, Louisville Slugger is half yours now.

Significant other took bath salts and stuck your cat in the oven? Lucky you! It's a twofer! Sue the government for not finding the bath salts AND get to sue kitchenaid for making the oven!

He believes that by allowing the free market to work on gunmakers and distributers it would create an economic incentive to ensure that their products don’t wind up in the wrong hands

Then we should open all manufacturers to litigation. Everything from a baseball bat to a xylophone can be used as a weapon, so the makers should be held accountable. Car makers especially and not just for recalls or lemons. Every time someone dies in a car accident, we should be able to sue. The car makers should have known that person was going to drink and drive, so it's their fault. The makers of the Louisville Slugger should be treated just like Smith&Wesson and be held responsible.

By the way, the free market is working for gun makers. They have want we want, we buy it.

a reply to: deliberator

A firearm is an INANIMATE object...it cannot work or kill on its own accord, its own will and without a person to load the chamber, pull the trigger...it's just a paperweight.
It is people that make it lethal.

Shall we just get rid of people then?

www.jsonline.com...

SO Who's with me?
I'm suing Microsoft for the economic assault on America's middle class,many did so using PC computers MANUFACTURED by Microsoft.it's open and shut...'till they dummy up and write another law...

a reply to: rockintitz

Can you give me an example of a knife manufacturer that was held accountable for negligence on the part of their customers?

I think you misunderstood me. I completely agree with you. What I meant is that it is common sense so why does it need a law?

The part I thought had merit was the rest of his argument relating to capitalism promoting safety improvements which may help reduce gun crime. I did state this was my personal opinion and asked others for their views, primarily to illicit if it is feasible in the real world.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
SO Who's with me?
I'm suing Microsoft for the economic assault on America's middle class,many did so using PC computers MANUFACURED by Microsoft.it's open and shut...

80 % of our youth complain of back pain......
20% do not have a computer

a reply to: deliberator

Saying we have a "gun problem" is like saying we have a "rock problem".

We simply need to do something about all those rocks hitting our toes! Think of the Children!!!


The problem we have, is with people who *USING* the damned things to hurt people.


I'll say it, again....

GUNS DON'T KILL, PEOPLE KILL

But you know, hey....let's all blame the inanimate object....

a reply to: deliberator

Let's look back at GM, who consciously withheld information and a recall that led to an insane number of deaths.

Let's look at pharmaceutical companies which churn out numerous products with feel good, pleasantly narrarated commercials that have DEATH as a viable byproduct.

Let's look at conventional food manufacturing which compounds "food" with an insane amount of carcinogens, yet pays off Congress to avoid negative publicity.

Let's look at soft drink manufacturers, who routinely utilize gmo high fructose corn syrup, sugar in excess of 30 grams per serving and aspartame , causing diabetes and an untold host of chronic disease and obesity

How about prepared meats with cheap, easy alternatives for preservation, that are known to cause cancer.

Sarcasm on: definitely, we need to remove folks ability to defend themselves SOMEWHAT with equal force they are presented with...and take their ability to feed themselves off the land, or protect their non corporate livestock...golly, guns are the problem aren't they?

The problem is that in our litigious society, all the money that might be spent developing those measures would be soaked up fighting lawsuits.

Enjoy...


www.ranting-gryphon.com...

a reply to: deliberator

Capitalism already drives the market. Garbage guns don't sell. Companies that put out crap product get bought by somebody who doesn't and has the capital to buy them out.

At its base, his idea is to sue gun makers into oblivion. Allow them to be sued until they come up with a safety product that works right up until it doesn't. Or it works too well, and somebody dies from it. And then they get sued again.

So really, it just seems to me to be an effort to open up manufacturers to endless litigation.

a reply to: Shamrock6

It's the old 1980s sue the establishment for over serving addage in different clothes.

Well said

government only has the power to regulate and punish
It is not government's place to control every aspect of our lives which may place us in danger.
We should stop trusting in government to be the corrective force for our society's problems.
This is the real cause of our dissatisfaction with government, for we're asking things of it which take more and more liberty in exchange for increasingly disappointing results.

a reply to: ketsuko

I was wondering this myself relating to litigation in the US. In the UK knife crime is increasing but no one in their right mind would take a kitchen knife manufacturer to court to claim damages, it just ludicrous so we have no law against it.

I completely agree about it being the person not the gun. I just thought the safety measure he gave as an example is technologically possible but has not been implemented. He gives his own reasons as to why.

Ten years ago my mum was terrified of a group who squatted in some abandoned buildings very close to where she lived in Spain as they were breaking into peoples homes and taking everything. My mum was frightened to go out as she has a German Shepherd and another neighbour's dog was hit over the head with something and died. My mum bought an air pistol. The local police (not the Guardia Civil) told my home that if they come into your home you can use any means to protect yourself. I was in total agreement when she bought this air pistol.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: deliberator

I don't think any industry should have to be protected from litigation when someone buys their product and uses it for ill intent.

When you are talking about cars and safety, you are talking about a car's features when you are in it and directly driving it.

When you are talking about the gun, you are not talking about how if I buy the gun, it blows up in my hand and injures me when I try to use it because it is a poorly constructed piece of crap. You are talking about how someone takes that gun and decides to use it for ill intent. In that instance, the gun could be working perfectly, but it doesn't have a say in how it gets used.

Certainly, the gun manufacturer could make the "safest" gun around, one that only works for the person who buys it, and when that person uses it for ill intent, what then? Is the manufacturer still at fault for what the "gun" did?

No.

They cannot help what use their guns are put to the same way no one sues Toyota when a person uses a Tundra to mow down 15 or 20 people in a crowd. The Tundra may be perfectly safe and working perfectly as intended, but Toyota bears no blame for the use the driver decides to put the perfectly functioning vehicle.

Some sympathy with that as far as faulty goods are concerned, and personal misuse.
However should they go the way with, "intelligent" guns pertinent to one owner, I see no real reason why that gun should not be destroyed once that owner is done with it since an, "intelligent" gun has such a very singular purpose.