Obviously the easiest way to eliminate military conflict on our planet could be banning all wars.
Easier said then make it happen.
So we could rather make legal claims against every company that provided weapon , arms used to kill people in military conflict.
Like manufacturer of asbestos or harmful pesticides- all can go bankrupted in civilian proceedings, claims and compensations.
For example if that tank was used to kill somebody in village : claim will be made against tank manufacturer not the person that used it.
Easy.
All we need is independent justice system and courts.
Maybe not exactly the court in NY, but some neutral place?
I knew it....... macro is the anti-Christ in charge of the NWO
We need a special forum for this
Select to expand quoteMark _australia said..
I knew it....... macro is the anti-Christ in charge of the NWO
We need a special forum for this
Oh god help us, NOOO.
Select to expand quoteMark _australia said..
I knew it....... macro is the anti-Christ in charge of the NWO
We need a special forum for this
Do you think we should do this same with guns?Charge manufacturer every time somebody is killed with their product? Don't even need possibly to change much of gun law in US to implement this system.
Eventually similar global conscious was applied to Tabaco business.
First comes will to eliminate Tabaco and smoking ,then comes solution.
Now you could smoke as much as you want and pay $50 per packet of cigarettes'.
We don't need to buncrupt gun manufacturer instantly.
But everytime somebody is killed in US let them pay a fine.
For life lost.
How much is life worth in US?
1 mln dollars,
10 mln ?? that should be enough to make somebody thinking...
This is not a new idea. I read it in a 2010 book by Geoffrey Miller "Must Have - the Hidden Instincts Behind Everything We Buy"
Slighly different. He wants a tax on bullets to cover the social harm from using them. His numbers were 30 000 gun deaths in the USA every year for 10 billion bullets sold. 3 deaths per million or 1/333 333 chance of any given bullet killing somebody.
If a life is worth $ 1 000 000 a bullet should cost $3.00, not 20c.
If it is $10 000 000 then bullets should be $30.00.
And that wouldn't cover non lethal harms.
Going to make it real expensive to drive a car then, Macro.
Or own a pool that people drown in, or myriad other things you might want to own.
BTW Mr Milk I don't know we should include suicide (?) so your 30,000 comes down to 19,000 in the 2020 (the worst year for gun homicide)
Select to expand quoteMacroscien said..
Obviously the easiest way to eliminate military conflict on our planet could be banning all wars.
Easier said then make it happen.
So we could rather make legal claims against every company that provided weapon , arms used to kill people in military conflict.
Like manufacturer of asbestos or harmful pesticides- all can go bankrupted in civilian proceedings, claims and compensations.
For example if that tank was used to kill somebody in village : claim will be made against tank manufacturer not the person that used it.
Easy.
All we need is independent justice system and courts.
Maybe not exactly the court in NY, but some neutral place?
I didn't read what you wrote, but I'm pretty sure it's half baked.
Select to expand quoteMr Milk said..
This is not a new idea. I read it in a 2010 book by Geoffrey Miller "Must Have - the Hidden Instincts Behind Everything We Buy"
Slighly different. He wants a tax on bullets to cover the social harm from using them. His numbers were 30 000 gun deaths in the USA every year for 10 billion bullets sold. 3 deaths per million or 1/333 333 chance of any given bullet killing somebody.
If a life is worth $ 1 000 000 a bullet should cost $3.00, not 20c.
If it is $10 000 000 then bullets should be $30.00.
And that wouldn't cover non lethal harms.
May work, but there is a chance of black market for bullets.
In such case we need serial number for each bullet, tracking record, most likely block chain like, and a lot of effort to supervise the system.
At the end make using guns expensive for everybody else , beside those actually used to kill people.
Beside those $30 per bullet price possibly somehow make gun manufacturers even richer.
We want to make them poorer to the point , they will buncrupt and stop manufacturing guns at very end.
Then gun workshops will be required to retool and make something useful.
Select to expand quotemyscreenname said..
I didn't read what you wrote, but I'm pretty sure it's half baked.
Still buying at the DIP?
Or you are already in deep s88t with your Bitcoin investments?
^^ and serial number automotive wheel balancing weights that are commonly used by shooters to cast their own projectiles?
Ridiculous.
Select to expand quoteMark _australia said..
Going to make it real expensive to drive a car then, Macro.
Or own a pool that people drown in, or myriad other things you might want to own.
BTW Mr Milk I don't know we should include suicide (?) so your 30,000 comes down to 19,000 in the 2020 (the worst year for gun homicide)
I suspect that somebody comes with car as example.
Yes,
If you design car to kill people,
then yes,
Let them ( car manufacturers) pay 20 mln for each person killed. Or swimming pool designed to drown people,
or even any other tool and item that kill people, but it should not.
Select to expand quoteMark _australia said..
^^ and serial number automotive wheel balancing weights that are commonly used by shooters to cast their own projectiles?
Ridiculous.
I am sure that future development could come with some solution that could satisfy both parties.
Pro and against guns.
For example digital camera installed on the rifle or gun to take shot of every shot you make.If you target and shot deere or bunny - cost you nothing, But shooting people should be expensive.
For example camera attached to rifle , gun that record every shot you did.
All the gun nut enthusiasts should be shot.
Its about the only good use for guns these days.
Trump supports everyone should own a gun
............. no need to say anymore.
There are other ways to get rid of goats and rabbits without the use of guns, that seems to be the only reason the gun nuts say they must own weapons, even when they live in areas with thousands of people and very few pests.
Guns dont kill people, people who OWN guns kill people.
Macro my guns are designed to kill rabbits.
My car is designed to get me to work or the shops.
Select to expand quoteMark _australia said..
Going to make it real expensive to drive a car then, Macro.
Or own a pool that people drown in, or myriad other things you might want to own.
BTW Mr Milk I don't know we should include suicide (?) so your 30,000 comes down to 19,000 in the 2020 (the worst year for gun homicide)
You're saying that lives that get ended voluntarily don't count? Or that the heirs should be able to claim back the tax on the bullet?
No quite clearly I'm saying if they want to place a tax on bullets according to homicide rate I guess there needs to be one on cars for the death rate caused by cars driven stoopidly too huh.
I'm also saying that the original math from the proponents was for "gun deaths" and they confused it with homicide rate from guns in USA. its around 53% suicide, and 3% cops lawful shootings and people use whatever numbers further their cause......
Its all ridiculous.
Select to expand quoteMark _australia said..
Macro my guns are designed to kill rabbits.
My car is designed to get me to work or the shops.
There are more guns in US then people. Very doubt that is even more rabbits in whole America then guns. Maybe those city dwellers need also guns to shoot rats not other people?
BTW. Whole world is shaken by recent war in Ukraine
but the truth is that so far more people die in USA
every year in peace time from gun shots then
in Ukraine on both sides together.
So conclusion is
that bed war is not as bed as good peace time in quiet , peace loving country.
Select to expand quoteMark _australia said..
No quite clearly I'm saying if they want to place a tax on bullets according to homicide rate I guess there needs to be one on cars for the death rate caused by cars driven stoopidly too huh.
I'm also saying that the original math from the proponents was for "gun deaths" and they confused it with homicide rate from guns in USA. its around 53% suicide, and 3% cops lawful shootings and people use whatever numbers further their cause......
Its all ridiculous.
There are more pleasant way to finish own life that gun shot to the head.
91 thousand people in US chooses rather to drug themselves to death every year then shoot .
BTW
Australia is that lucky country ,
that have enough rabbits to shoot
for everybody !! We don't need to kill people !!!
^^^ So the USA has more firearms per resident than anywhere else on earth (393 mil guns, 300mil people). About 6x more than the nearest which is India with 71 mil and a population of 1.4bil
Thats staggering
But USA is only 10th in the list of gun deaths .....all those other countries ahead of them...... Maybe its got more to do with crime? Or mental health?
Gun homicide in USA is overwhelmingly black and latino males involved in gangs and drugs. Now look at the top 9 countries. Parallels?
YES there should be a lot less private gun ownership and Yanks don;t need AR15's for hunting - but its the crooks, the crime, the drugs and the gangs. Then its the media coverage of mass shootings that spurs on the mentally ill but the media refuse to stop glorifying them with 24/7 coverage (That's not me talking - its the american psychs calling for a reduction in the media, and they did it before to reduce the suicide rate. see www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2016/08/media-contagion
They even put up a petition to rein in the media and nothing happened)
where are you getting your gun death data from Mark
maybe so far this year but historically No
worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country
when comparing to high income countries also No
www.healthdata.org/acting-data/gun-violence-united-states-outlier
Your first link agrees with me. USA is nowhere near top of gun deaths and to then only look at rich countries and say its the highest proves what, exactly? When they look at age-adjusted stats, it is not first anymore, so I choose that stat its ridiculous.
Regardless of if you or I cherry pick stats - mass shootings in schools and similar are far from the biggest problem in the USA. The biggest is gang violence but nobody suggests cracking down on poor black or hispanic people do they...?
I'd say the APA knows what they're talking about and they have implored the media top stop the 24/7 coverage glorifying mass shooters but the media won't. Its big money. The research and past experience (with the APA-instigated voluntary ban on reporting celebrity suicides having a massive effect). If its too hard to get all the guns off people, why won't they take these simple steps?
