And the award for today's most asinine anti- article goes to . . .

[JcJ]

LA times

I think this is just as stupid as the rest of the "solutions", but at least these two hippies are thinking for themselves..

Maybe gun giveaways, or a lottery would cut down on the gangbanger problem.

How gun makers can help us - Los Angeles Times


Yeah, that program sure is the model for success..

Performance-based regulation leaves it up to them to decide. This is the same outcome-based approach that the No Child Left Behind program takes concerning schools. Through No Child Left Behind, parents and school officials set achievement targets for students, and schools then have to figure out how to meet the targets.

wtf good is this going to do?

The plan might even include a "cap and trade" feature. If some gun makers managed to reduce the gun deaths caused by their product even faster than the rules required, they could sell that excess to other companies.

(cookies rock..)

 

[Scutter01]

Performance-based regulation leaves it up to them to decide. This is the same outcome-based approach that the No Child Left Behind program takes concerning schools. Through No Child Left Behind, parents and school officials set achievement targets for students, and schools then have to figure out how to meet the targets.

Yeah, let's model it after the complete failure that is No Child Left Behind! The program that can't figure out how to teach our kids, so it just lowers the bar until everybody passes! Oh, and let's not forget that because we've spent all of our money on the bottom 10% that there's no money left for accelerated programs (like advanced math and science, music and the arts) for our top 10%. Yeah, that'll be a great model to follow!

 

[JcJ]

My wife, the teacher, calls it "The every child left behind act"


Berkley, nuff said..:do2:

 

[Bill of Rights]

I read the article. That's two minutes of my life I'll never get back.

It's a real shame that these guys are liberals, because while they have a good goal, reducing unnecessary deaths, they're approaching it in a completely wrongheaded way. (

Gun manufacturers insist that these deaths are not their fault, preferring to pin the blame on criminals and irresponsible dealers.

Imagine! Holding criminals responsible for their OWN crimes! :rolleyesedit

Their methods, if they weren't so misguided, would be laughable, but their goal (reducing deaths involving firearm use) is laudable . I'll give them credit for the goal. The issue here is that they're setting up an impossible scenario. They're not going to relax the laws on gun ownership nor end the failed "war on drugs" to allow those resources to be used against criminals who commit crimes with real, you know, victims, which is what needs to happen for crime rates and by extension, murder rates, to go down. They'll not change the law to stop prohibiting guns on school campuses, even for gun safety training to help prevent children from accidentally, through ignorance, misusing guns, found or otherwise. Education is the key, and most firearms companies have some part of their budget delineated for that purpose, I'd imagine. All of them seem to in some way support NRA's education programs, so I'm not sure what more they can do.

Blessings,
B

 

[Episcopus]

The LA Times!

How gun makers can help us - Los Angeles Times

How gun makers can help us
Make firearms manufacturers figure out how to reduce the 12,000 shooting deaths each year.
By Jeffrey Fagan and Stephen D. Sugarman
June 29, 2008
This year, about 12,000 Americans will be shot to death. It's a staggering figure, and even though lawmakers have continued to pass gun-control laws to try to bring the number down, they have not significantly reduced the murder rate. Indeed, for the last decade, guns have steadily remained the cause of about two-thirds of all homicides.

Gun manufacturers insist that these deaths are not their fault, preferring to pin the blame on criminals and irresponsible dealers. They have fiercely resisted even minimal restrictions on sales and have simultaneously washed their hands of responsibility for this "collateral damage."

On Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court made the problem a little more difficult to solve, ruling in District of Columbia vs. Heller that the individual's right to bear arms is indeed protected by the 2nd Amendment -- and making it clear that some laws banning guns would have a difficult time passing constitutional muster in the future.

What is to be done? The conventional regulatory approaches seem to be failing. A more recent strategy, in which victims or municipalities bring lawsuits against gun manufacturers or retailers, seems legally and politically unpromising since the 2005 passage of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which shields gun manufacturers from civil liability.

We propose a new way to prod gun makers to reduce gun deaths, one that would be unlikely to put them out of business or to prevent law-abiding citizens from obtaining guns. By using a strategy known as "performance-based regulation," we would deputize private actors -- the gun makers -- to deal with the negative effects of their products in ways that promote the public good.

In other words, rather than telling gun makers what to do, performance-based regulation would tell them what outcome they must achieve: Reduce deaths by guns. Companies that achieve the target outcomes might receive large financial bonuses; companies that don't would face severe financial penalties. Put simply, gun makers -- whose products kill even when used as directed -- would have to take responsibility for curbing the consequent public health toll.

Under our plan, Congress might require gun makers in the aggregate to reduce gun homicides from 12,000 to, say, 7,000 in 10 years, with appropriate interim targets along the way. Individual firms would each have their own targets to meet, based on the extent their guns are currently used in homicides. Or Congress might simply leave it to neutral experts to determine just how much of a numerical reduction should be required -- and how quickly. Either way, the required decline would be substantial.

How would gun companies go about reducing gun deaths? The main thing to emphasize is that this approach relies on the nimbleness, innovation and experimentation that come from private competition -- rather than on the heavy-handed power of governmental regulation. Gun makers might decide to add trigger locks to their guns, or to work only with dealers who meet certain standards of responsibility. They might withdraw their semiautomatic weapons from the consumer market, or even work hand in hand with local officials to fight gangs and increase youth employment opportunities. Surely they will think up new strategies once they have a legal obligation and financial incentive to take responsibility for the harm their products cause.

Performance-based regulation leaves it up to them to decide. This is the same outcome-based approach that the No Child Left Behind program takes concerning schools. Through No Child Left Behind, parents and school officials set achievement targets for students, and schools then have to figure out how to meet the targets. Similarly, performance-based regulation is used in a variety of pollution-control schemes and is becoming the preferred global strategy to combat climate change. For example, under pressure from coalitions of environmentalists, scientists and citizens, regulatory bodies are ordering public utilities to sharply cut their carbon emissions. The companies are responsible for designing solutions to best achieve that goal, which could include switching fuels, changing the way they produce electricity, installing scrubbers on smokestacks and so on.

Sen. Michael D. Enzi (R-Wyo.) has put forward a proposal along the same lines to target tobacco. Typically, anti-smoking organizations lobby Congress to give the Food and Drug Administration regulatory power over cigarette companies, and press locally to increase tobacco taxes, run more government anti-tobacco ads and boost enforcement of bans on sales to minors. Under Enzi's performance-based regulation plan, however, the tobacco companies would simply be told by Congress that they have to cut their customer base by about 50% in 12 years. It would then be up to the companies to figure out how to curtail smoking rates.

So how exactly might this work in the case of gun makers? For more than half of all gun homicides, law enforcement officials are able to identify the precise type of lethal weapon that was used. From that data, reliable statistical projections can be made to determine each company's approximate share of all homicides. Each company's quotas would be based on the data, and tied to an ever-decreasing number of deaths.

A more fine-tuned strategy would set different gun-death-reduction quotas based on the specific weapon -- with larger reductions mandated for guns that are more commonly used in homicides.

The plan might even include a "cap and trade" feature. If some gun makers managed to reduce the gun deaths caused by their product even faster than the rules required, they could sell that excess to other companies.

If gun makers fail to reach the performance targets, they would face substantial financial penalties that would hike the cost of the guns they make and drive home the huge negative social consequences they now cause.

Our proposal is not a tax on gun sales. As long as gun companies met their goals, they would pay nothing extra to the government. Indeed, the plan might reward them with bonuses.

Performance-based regulation is not about the government denying people access to guns. It's not an academic theory about the underlying causes of gun deaths, nor is it a restriction on the right of law-abiding citizens to bear arms. Instead, it is a practical way to align the gun companies' interests with the public interest and, ultimately, to save lives.

Jeffrey Fagan is a professor of law and public health at Columbia University. Stephen D. Sugarman is a professor of law at UC Berkeley.

My favorite part?

Gun makers might decide to add trigger locks to their guns, or to work only with dealers who meet certain standards of responsibility. They might withdraw their semiautomatic weapons from the consumer market

How would trigger locks reduce deaths by gunshot? How does fewer semi-autos = fewer gunshot related deaths? I was completely unaware that my 9mm p239 with 8 round mags was so much more deadly than this
Product: Model 460 XVR Revolver - 8 3/8"

 

[SilentWarrior1]

One word...

Dirtballs.

 

[Zephri]

Funny, when you add together all the other ways people die in this country, dieing from guns isn't so bad.

 

[JcJ]

This is the same outcome-based approach that the No Child Left Behind program takes concerning schools. Through No Child Left Behind, parents and school officials set achievement targets for students, and schools then have to figure out how to meet the targets.

Yep, because that program works so freaking well, why not..

 

[Paul]

Yep, because that program works so freaking well, why not..

I was thinking the same thing

these people are dumb. you cant blame the gun manufactures because people use their product in a bad way.

 

[Steeler]

" For more than half of all gun homicides, law enforcement officials are able to identify the precise type of lethal weapon that was used. From that data, reliable statistical projections can be made to determine each company's approximate share of all homicides."


What??!! How the hell does that work? This has got to be one of the dumbest ideas I`ve ever read.

 

[Pami]

Merged.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Kirk's Brilliant Idea #2:

In order to help gun makers reduce firearms deaths (this is like making car makers help reduce drunk driving deaths), all gun makers receive massive government assistance to the tune of 1 million dollars per gun made. This money will be spent in development of firing range building across the United States. The National Rifle Association will run said firing ranges which will be open to the public so they can qualify for the Firearms Qualification For Voting Test.

I will further amend the "No Child Left Behind Act" to include massive allocation of funds for firearms education. Firearm training would begin and Grade 4 and continue through senior year of high school. Before graduation each student must pass a basic firearms knowledge and use test. Any student failing this test would not be allowed to vote or drive a motor vehicle.

The CMP will be amended and government arsenals will be reestablished where governmentally subsidized new and surplus firearms and ammunition will be available for sale to fund further educational efforts.

 

[Episcopus]

This article is also being discussed in this thread--> https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/politics_laws_and_2nd_amendment/6505-la_times.html

Sorry, didn't see it over there. Can you merge the threads or something, so we don't have two discussions on the same thing?

 

[jontheturboguy]

12,000 people a year out of the HOW MANY BILLIONS IN THE COUNTRY?

Are you kidding me? Since when did 12,000 become an "epidemic."

Wow....

 

[Episcopus]

12,000 people a year out of the HOW MANY BILLIONS IN THE COUNTRY?

Are you kidding me? Since when did 12,000 become an "epidemic."

Wow....

Somewhere around 305 million
U.S. and World Population Clocks - POPClocks

Roughly .0039% of the population dies a shooting related death each year. OMG! EVERYBODY PANIC!

In 2006, there were 38,588 fatal traffic crashes (FARS Encyclopedia), which resluted in 42,642 deaths. That is nearly 4 times as many deaths as gun related. But let's regulate guns, they are dangerous.

 

[Santee]

You cannot legislate morality and ethics. You can teach it in the home and in the schools, no wait, they won't allow that in the schools. Thus the home is the only teaching area left for this, and since many homes are failing to teach even the basics of right and wrong, we have a breakdown in certain segments of society.

You cannot hold others responsible for the failures of individuals. The lack of moral fiber, and the lack of ethical behavior by individuals are the driving force of crime in our nation. There is one remedy for criminals, prison. And the revolving door of our criminal justice system turns violent offenders back out to prey upon society.

Perhaps, gun manufactoring should be given a different incentive. The incentive would be for the number of criminals the weapons take off the street each year. This is the only true feasible way to deter or reduce violent crime in our socially engineered society. The only ways are to take the criminal off the street, prison, or put them in permanent exile, in the graveyard.

 

[shotbyspike]

Idiots. I hate LA.