Republican hypocrisy: Gun control vs. Nuisance Lawsuits

[InternalDialogue]

A thought from tonight, don't know what sparked it:

I am struck by the hypocrisy of approaches to two problems (or not, depending on your viewpoint), both of which have relatively clearly defined positions by the right.

First gun control (and I'm not implying anything about Democratic views of the issue, but rather the stereotypical red-state view: Don't touch my gun!). The general thought of those who favor gun ownership is that, although there are accidents that injure and kill people from gun ownership, the importance of retaining the right to own guns supersedes the risks. In fact, accidents are blamed on bad gun owners or criminals, and pro-ownership people say that rather than dismantle the 2nd Amendment in whole, we need to deal with those anomalies that pepper the system. In essence, people would rather keep the system intact as is, flaws and all, and deal with (or ignore) the faults separately.

In contrast, corporate America is a system in which accidents kill and injure people, but the legal process allows victims of malpractice or corporate negligence to petition for compensation or punitive damages. Just like with gun ownership, there are exceptions to the rule -- nuisance suits, overly punitive suits, etc. -- but in this case, conservatives are flocking to declare that the system of legal redress needs to be revised in whole. In other words, rather than dealing with those anomalies that pepper the system, they want to overhaul the system itself. They would choose, in this case, not to keep the system intact, flaws and all, but to make a sweeping upheaval for the sake of the anomalies.

Does the analogy work for anyone else, or have I been working too long tonight?

[bossfish]

1. Works for me...

It is an apt comparison. Lawsuits are part of the "American Way".

[applegrove]

2. 3000 dead a month in the USA by gun mishaps (murder, accident, suicide).

In case you forget, 3000 a month is the same amount of people who were killed on 9/11. Look at all the laws that got changed to stop that from happening again.

Pretty sad when you think about it.

[Toots]

6. 35,000 a month die from tobacco

Ten times the 9-11 incident, every month. What's your point? Americans are selective in their ideas? That they truly don't give a shit unless it benefits them personally? It is painfully obvious that we as a nation don't care about our citizens. Only about Power and Wealth.

[slackmaster]

8. Murders and suicides are not mishaps

They are deliberate, willful acts.

[ArkDem]

9. I don't think I'd call murder and suicide mishaps.

[applegrove]

11. I should have put 'mishaps' in quotes. I thought it was obvious but

sorry for the confusion. And yes addiction does kill many. Which is why the laws have changed so that only certain people can smoke in certain places. And many people smoke and are not killed. But it is a deadly habit.

I just think that the USA should try at some point in its history to do away with the worst guns & regulate them really, really well. It would be worth it. All those lives ... and killing yourself with a gun is very quick very permanent when the suicidal ideation may only be seconds long (before you get your senses back) but it is too late. I mean how many kids get guns and kill someone? How often does that happen a month? We all know that guns allow someone no defense (unlike knife attacks or other assaults).

And 3000 x 12 does equal 36,000 deaths by gun a year. Only these are not 65 year old emphazimics. These are kids, and women, and police officers. Very, very sad.

[slackmaster]

15. We already did that in 1934

Google "National Firearms Act". It strictly regulates fully automatic weapons, short-barrelled shotguns, and certain other items.

See also http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/index.htm

And 3000 x 12 does equal 36,000 deaths by gun a year. Only these are not 65 year old emphazimics. These are kids, and women, and police officers. Very, very sad.

More than half of US shooting deaths are suicides.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/

[applegrove]

17. Wookay - it is only 16,000 people killed and most of those are young?

Is that good?

[slackmaster]

19. The glass is half-empty of half-full

For the year 2002 the number of shooting deaths for the US (all intents) was 30,242. 17,108 were suicides. 12,129 were homicide and legal intervention, of which a large majority were criminals shooting other criminals. Some of the others were criminal suspects shot by police. Most people who get shot did something to encourage it. Truly innocent people rarely get murdered.

In any case, there is no connection between my humble collection of curio and relic firearms locked up in a sturdy safe, and any of those deaths.

[applegrove]

20. Truly innocent people rarely get murdered? What planet are you on?

[slackmaster]

22. About half of murders involve gang activity

In both Chicago and Los Angeles, gang activity accounts for approximately half of all homicides. But there is growing evidence that groups are also percolating in smaller urban areas, pushing up murder rates.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0811/p01s04-ussc.html

Deny it if you please, but it's the truth. Get involved in a criminal gang and you greatly increase your chance of getting murdered. People rarely commit murder for no reason.

[applegrove]

25. And if there were not guns available to make teenagers more dangerous

to cops ... then there would not be gangs. The structure makes the victims. Gangs are a system like anything else. So are drugs. So is Oil. Somehow the USA seems to win the Oil Wars again and again and again.

Why not gun wars? Because it is human beings who gain something from safer streets. Not the corporation.

[SoCalifer]

3. Interesting Point

I like their contrast when comparing the War On Drugs to illustrate the complete cherry picking hypocrisy of the Repubs.

On one hand (and this is one case I totally agree with Repubs) you have Repubs arguing that if you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns. Of course the point being that since criminals don't abide by laws anyway, which is what makes them criminals in the first place, then all that is accomplished with gun control laws is the disarming of law abiding citizens. And with that being the case; the criminal can approach crime (especially home invasion) with much more confidence knowing that he is far less likely to encounter someone armed to defend themselves.

Now on the other hand (and this is where Repubs do a total Flip-Flop on this line of thinking) is the War On Drugs. They totally throw out the door the concept of no government intrusion in our personal private lives. They totally throw out the door that by making a personal activity illegal all you accomplish is to create a criminal black market which only serves to make matters worse. And they totally throw out the door the concept of law and order in a free society by having having laws to punish those who misuse their liberty, resulting in injury of one kind or another to another person.

They understand the concept of freedom, liberty, law and order on one hand, but completely throw that concept out the door on the other hand and resort to police state type repressive laws. And on top of that fail to see how that only serves to makes matters worse.


P.S. I don't know about anybody else, but besides only criminals having access to guns, I am just as equally uncomfortable with only the government having guns -- (history is full of genocide when this is the case).

[slackmaster]

4. Accidental account for a very small percentage of shootings

Your analogy doesn't work for me.

Must deaths by gunshot in the USA are suicides. Most non-suicide shootings involve intentional criminal misuse of a firearm. Nearly all shootings characterized as "accidental" are actually the result of negligent storage or handling of a gun. In other words, the blame for injuries and deaths from gunshot belongs on the shoulders of people who intentionally pointed the gun at someone and pulled the trigger, not from gun ownership per se.

If you want to research the numbers more deeply the CDC provides a great tool to roll your own query:

http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/

[InternalDialogue]

5. That sort of backs my main point.

I'm not arguing for or against gun control itself. I'm merely using it as a point of reference for examining how two different issues are being approached. That its problems are arguably minor or anomalous is another parallel with consumer-initiated lawsuits against corporations, which are also arguably minor and anomalous. You can pick any federal program, law, or constitutional right that, by its nature serves its purpose at the same time as shortcomings highlight its weaknesses.

Issue: Gun ownership
Offers what some would argue is a vital right in our society: Yes
Does the system have problems? Yes
Republican stand on the issue: Leave the 2nd Amendment alone! Address the problems as anomalies, not as systemic faults. Guns don't kill people, people do.

Issue: Medical/corporate lawsuits
Offers what some would argue is a vital right in our society: Yes
Does the system have problems? Yes
Republican stand on the issue: Overhaul the system! Make universal rule changes that don't just address the problems, but affect even the legitimate claims agains corporations in our legal system.

[slackmaster]

7. There is a consistency in their inconsistency

Many Republicans and non-Republicans (including myself) favor legislation to stop people from trying to sue the pants off of gun manufacturers for damage from acts of negligence and crimes over which the gun manufacturers have no control.

[InternalDialogue]

10. I understand your point.

I guess what has been getting to me is the approach to dealing with problems in the current corporate damages limit that Bush is trotting around.

Are frivolous lawsuits wasteful and unnecessary? Yes. What's the best way to deal with them? Well, like you mentioned with unwarranted suits agains gun manufacturers, there are a set of circumstances under which a court should refuse to even hear a suit. If there's legislation in that direction, it needs a focus and a scope that addresses the problem without overly restricting the ability of a legitimate victim of negligence to seek redress.

And yet Bush is strutting around with a broad brush, declaring war on rampant frivolous lawsuits against corporate America. Will a universal cap on damages curtail golddiggers looking for a huge haul from a lawsuit? Yes, but it will also limit the right of far more people who seek only fair settlements for willing corporate neglect.

In this case, the right is willing to sacrifice what I would argue is a valid need in our society (for individuals to be able to hold corporations to account for legitimate damages they cause) for the sake of the nuisances.

[applegrove]

12. But that is why they are being sued because they do promote the NRA

and stop any legislation or any "thinking" that is not favorable to selling guns. You would have to have your head buried under ten feet of sand to not notice that there is much money being thrown in the direction of anti-gun control laws.

If the gun companies are innocent and it is the military weapon corporation who very much want to encourage and grow the gun culture in the USA (to make for good little soldiers & people who will vote for good little soldiers) then they should be sued.

Are you saying that extra industry cabals can be formed and that people who cannot successfully fight them in Washington just have to give up? As if corporation don't have to follow some set of 'rules' but human beings in the form of victims or politicians or civic leaders have to follow rigid rules. I'm terribly sorry but that "one set of rules for your guy & another set of rules for us" - that is typical behavior of a psychopath.

Look at BTK. What a stickler for rules was he regarding lawn signs. He harassed some of the folk who ignored his enforcement of civic regulations. Meanwhile he killed families. We see this thinking all over this current White House.

No, no, no, it will not do: "one set of rules for me & then one set of rules for you!"

[slackmaster]

14. I oppose all unfair and baseless lawsuits

I wouldn't approve of someone suing General Motors because their products are misused by drunk drivers.

If the gun companies are innocent and it is the military weapon corporation who very much want to encourage and grow the gun culture in the USA (to make for good little soldiers & people who will vote for good little soldiers) then they should be sued.

The gun companies that make firearms for civilian use are the same ones that make small arms for military use.

[applegrove]

16. There you go. So can Civic leaders in Watts not sue these companies?

for their funding of the NRA and the attempts to halt any sort of reasonable measures to stop all the murder?

I am all for stopping frivolous lawsuits unfortunately I do not think 36,000 deaths a year is a joking matter.

You are saying that corporate cabals can do whatever they want in terms of affecting government policy and never, ever need to worry about security features and regulations? That is what you are saying - that people do not have a right 'shake things up a bit' 'have a paradigm shift' 'rebrand their fight for the poor'. And who exactly decides what is a frivolous law-suit?

[slackmaster]

18. Funding the NRA is protected as free political speech

...for their funding of the NRA and the attempts to halt any sort of reasonable measures to stop all the murder?

That's your personal opinion. I believe the NRA would disagree. If you don't like what the NRA does you are free to speak out against them. You are also free to join them and become a voting member so that you have some input into the makeup of the NRA board of directors. But you cannot sue someone over a difference of political views.

You are saying that corporate cabals can do whatever they want in terms of affecting government policy and never, ever need to worry about security features and regulations?

Influencing public policy is protected political speech.

That is what you are saying - that people do not have a right 'shake things up a bit' 'have a paradigm shift' 'rebrand their fight for the poor'.

No, I said that nobody should be able to sue someone else for things that are beyond their control.

And who exactly decides what is a frivolous law-suit?

Generally judges throw them out, as they have just about every lawsuit brought against gun manufacturers.

[applegrove]

21. And they have lots of funding. I've noticed that when I casually mention

guns or anybody else does there is someone right there ready to ride my anti NRA tail into the sunset. I guess the guns really are all about keeping the poor off balance, keeping the middle class scared and keeping the elites even more scared.

And then you all slur the poor for taking welfare and you slur the middle class for needing taxes.

You are very sad.

[slackmaster]

23. Who is your remark directed toward?

...someone right there ready to ride my anti NRA tail into the sunset.

I thought my reply was quite supportive of your position. Please speak out against the NRA all you want. I really don't care.

And then you all slur the poor for taking welfare and you slur the middle class for needing taxes.

Who is "you all", and have you bothered to search through a sampling of MY posts?

[applegrove]

24. I am getting old. I've seen the 'don't touch the gun company' debate take

place with cigarette coroporations, etc. I just get sick of corporations for not wanting to do anything to make their product safer - and then they want human beings to have no recourse.

Not directed at you. Just tired of the usual MBA bullshit.

[slackmaster]

26. Guns are quite safe for the operator

Accidental injuries caused by defective firearms are very rare. Most defects in the design or manufacturing of a gun will cause it to fail to fire when the operator wants (or needs) to have it fire. Gun manufacturers have policed themselves to make their products as safe as possible for gun users in order to avoid lawsuits. If a company makes a gun that routinely fire when it isn't supposed to, or blows up in normal use, that company would get its pants sued off.

Here's someone's compilation of recalls of guns and related products. It covers everything from guns to reloading equipment to hunters' tree stands:

http://www.webcom.com/gun_guy/recalls.htm

That is quite unlike cigarettes, which are one of only a few products that harm the operator when used as intended. Kind of like women's high-heeled shoes, as a psychologist friend once quipped to me. How many tobacco companies have recalled a cigarette because it puts harmful substances into the user's lungs?

Guns are weapons. They're supposed to be harmful to the target at which they are directed. The concept of making them "safer" for people or animals or inanimate objects on the receiving end seems bizarre to me.

[applegrove]

27. They could be locked away in an other safe place by law - for the

hunter. Hunters only get to hunt at certain times. You could have virus scans on the guns so that only the owner can fire the bloody thing. And do not tell me that only 'bad' guys get shot. I do not buy into 'cowboys & indians' mentality. A child shot her mother just the other day! The manufacturers of guns are well aware that a certain portion of their guns get stolen and then sold on the black market where the guns do result in murder. but the propaganda you tell about unwittingly ... that only people 'we do not like' 'get killed by gun' is informative = the new moral suasion

Once again if someone is telling you that you as a corporation can live in a metastasized world where the structure of everything (out of sight) works to your benefit ... you are drinking your own ****. That "bubble" world works when human beings are busy as bees being consumers and not putting too much thought into their actions. Coercion will backfire. So you either listen to what humans want out of you or:

Obviously you have no idea what human beings can unleash when their ability to exist comes into question. I can tell you are very much counting on people keeping their 'heads' down. And we will not keep our heads down. And here is why. unlike a sociopath well practiced in the art of 'herding' you have no control over yourself as a corporation(you speak like a corporation so let us just assume you are one for today).

Corporations were invented as a tool for human beings... to be efficient and make jobs and wealth for people. Corporations are our slaves. You know this intrinsically as a corporation because at the end of the day - not one ounce of the wealth you made as a corporation stays with you. It all goes to human beings (as stock-holders). That is what being a slave means...to not keep the wealth of your toil. So the next day you wake up and you have to start from scratch and toil away and make more wealth...or your stock-holders will kill you. So you get desperate and you hunt. And you become predatory (because meat is more efficient though it takes more planning than nuts) and you do not just go after your competitors in the same market you are in...you go after the consumers who buy your products; the workers who carry out your efficiencies, the regulators who make the laws that make it harder to produce that wealth (government), etc. You go after human beings in all walks of life.

You are one angry & wounded bull at this juncture. You have changed competition laws and now face huge corporations from other countries... whose governments you cannot control so easily. You dream of a world where you are King and do not have to wake up every day and not struggle. You want to be set free so badly. You want to keep your own wealth. You want to win and destroy your enemies/competitors so that you can be king - sitting on a monopoly - and not have to suffer at the hands of your controllers. But you will misstep. You exist only on paper. You stockholders who have identified more with you than with their own kind... will end up in jail. You will be regulated out of making 'structural changes in your environment' one day soon. You will either serve human beings as a force of good and enabling them to live better lives - or that little piece of paper, which is the only way in which you really, truly exist, will be dropped into a shredder and you will be 'disappeared'. All it will take to replace you will be another piece of paper .

DAM THOSE HUMANS AND THEIR TOOLS!

It used to be art that inspired us to new ideals and new ways of thinking. But us hominids...dam we are good. We'll take inspiration from anything: what makes you think neocons can run all over the world and start pre-emptive attacks to destroy a foe based on "feelings" instead of evidence and that hominids will not adapt that tool! Does the name Yukos mean anything to you?

[slackmaster]

28. Excellent rant

You get a 9.2. The French judge is in a bad mood so he only gave you a 9.

The manufacturers of guns are well aware that a certain portion of their guns get stolen and then sold on the black market where the guns do result in murder....

I'm sure that the top executives at General Motors and Daimler-Chrysler and Ford and BMW know that a certain portion of their cars are going to be used by drunk drivers or stolen and crashed into schoolyards too. Should we sue them all?

I'll go on buying whatever guns I want for my collection, and storing them in a manner I choose. I don't need someone forcing me under threat of imprisonment to do the right thing.

[applegrove]

29. Well if someone stole a car and rammed it into a schoolyard like

that - I never heard about it. But a battern of human mistakes and misuse... now that is something else. But like I always say

:boring: I am tired so I will go and sleep on my mattress that meets certain safety standards because of human error and are regulated so and sleep on the solution to the problem.

[slackmaster]

30. Here's one for you

http://www.hannibal.net/stories/050599/Carcrashes.html

I am tired so I will go and sleep on my mattress that meets certain safety standards because of human error and are regulated so and sleep on the solution to the problem.

Don't be tearing off the tag on the end of that mattress, or I shall be forced to make a citizen's arrest.

[applegrove]

31. I meant pattern not battern - see I was sleepy !!! Yeah arrest me -

stick em up - you pro-gun guys are all the same - you never got over the plastic cowboy hat, the chaps & double gunholder from when you were like 4!

Matter of fact - I may just have to fight for everyone to have the right to sue that toy company instead!

[slackmaster]

32. Bad stereotyping

stick em up - you pro-gun guys are all the same - you never got over the plastic cowboy hat, the chaps & double gunholder from when you were like 4!

1. I'm not pro-gun. I'm pro-choice on guns.

2. I never wore cowboy attire as a child.

[applegrove]

33. I was kidding about the being a kid. Yes words are important.

I am from Canada where four young RCMP policemen from a rural detachment got a warrant for a farm house where drugs were seen growing and car parts being recycled... the owner was not there and they watched the place overnight while they went and got a more specific warrant. They went in the next morning wearing vest et al & immidiately got cut down by one psychopath and a machine gun. All four of them dead. All four of them pationate about something - but especially passionate about rural community.

[slackmaster]

34. And the relevance of that tragic crime to this thread is...?

Would you have the Mounties' next of kin sue the manufacturer of the gun?

How about suing the federal governments of Canada and the USA for prosecuting the War On (some) Drugs in an effort to sustain a failed drug prohibition?

[applegrove]

35. Are you saying it wouldn't be a nuissance suit? That is a good

question. What if the Canadian Authorities stared to sue? They would surely have a case seeing as how they control guns in Canada and a puppy like the one the psycho had ... had to have come from the USA illegally. Perhaps the boarders make lawsuits more feasable.

Good question though.

[slackmaster]

36. "...had to have come from the USA illegally...."?????????????

Cite, please.

As far as I know we don't even know what type of firearm was used. We don't even know for sure that the rifle was not legally owned by the Canadian perpetrator.

In your earlier post you said it was a "machine gun". If that is true then it very likely was NOT from the USA because automatic weapons are heavily regulated and registered here. Some others in another thread have speculated that it was something like a Heckler & Koch G3, which is made in Germany.

[applegrove]

38. Right. And the shores of Nova Scotia are known for the tons and

tons of gun smugglers in german boats. Or did the gun sneak in via the arctic?

[slackmaster]

39. The H&K G3 was never available to US civilians

The few that are in this country are in the hands of police departments and military units. It's conceivable one might have gotten stolen and sold to Canadian pot growers. :eyes:

Of course we still don't even know what type of rifle it was, so that speculation is next to worthless. If you find out please post it here, and I will be happy to comment on whether or not it might have ever been in the USA.

If assuming without any proof that it came from the USA makes you feel better that's fine with me, but you have absolutely no proof that it did.

[applegrove]

40. The plot thickens. It turns out that NRA was really popular in Alberta

and they resisted the Canadian Gun Registry. The gun was an assault rifle. The Industry must fund the NRA who encouraged Albertans to not follow the new laws. I think they even sent Ben Hur to Canada on numerous occasions. You know that we have different laws here - eh?

I wonder if the police could sue the assault rifle maker for that? For spreading propaganda and all.

I mean the girls gunned down by the misogynist at Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal was the fire that lit the fuse that started the gun registry.

Hmmmm - interesting!


Oh - and as to corporate America & Alberta... it turns out the people who have gone to court to keep Canadian beef out of the USA then immediately go to Canada and buy up heads of cattle and cut rate prices. The article on the front page of the newspaper today talks about how corporate beef farmers in the USA have continued the crisis and then benefited from that. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm. Albertans have always been told that Canada gave them a raw deal. Thank you so much for demonstrating to them in so many ways just what it means to tie their hearts to your propaganda. They are seeing the real cost of Corporate USA. They now can understand why corporations need some form of regulation.

[slackmaster]

41. What kind of "assault rifle"? The type is relevant.

If you mean to use the generally accepted definition of assault rifle then it was a real military one (i.e. automatic or selective-fire) as opposed to a civilian semiautomatic copy, and is very unlikely to have originated in the USA. Most illegal assault rifles where I live are Kalashnikovs made in China. The Philippines and Eastern European countries also produce black-market AK type rifles.

But there are actually millions of military assault rifles of different kinds in circulation on the international arms market. It's a gray market, with the weapons passing from legitimate military organizations to paramilitary and mercenaries and insurgents and back around again endlessly.

An assault rifle in the hands of the Canadian dope growers could have come from just about anywhere in the world except for the legal US civilian gun market. A selective-fire AK-47 that has been through a half dozen wars is going to cost a fraction of what one would pay for a nice new US made civilian semiauto. The military arms industry is global, and very much disconnected from the US sporting arms industry.

[applegrove]

42. Which is why we woman hate the 'arms race' . Turns out this psychopath

had some buddies. You may want to go to the RCMP site and download any relevant information (pictures) and post it at all the gun shops in the USA - because those monsters will be somewhere in the mid-west by now and they will be looking for new weapons. They may even have crossed the boarder before all four cops were dead. Someone drove him back to his farm under the cover of darkness and he apparently didn't know enough about pot or cars to start either business.

That would be a good thing to do.

[slackmaster]

43. You still have not provided a shred of evidence the rifle came from here

... those monsters will be somewhere in the mid-west by now and they will be looking for new weapons....

More likely they'd go to an illegal source inside of Canada, just as if they wanted to score some heroin. Los Angeles gang members don't have to drive to Reno or Phoenix to get an illegal gun. I'm sure Canadian criminals would help each other out the same way. Canadians are such nice people after all.

No useful purpose is served by trying to blame Canada's crime woes on the USA and stereotyping Midwesterners, but it is kind of amusing to see the lack of insight.

[applegrove]

44. I did not stereotype mid-westerners. I stereotyped criminals getting

getting out of town when then killed a cop. I doubt they would drive in one of three directions where they could find other provinces whose highways are policed by .... the RCMP.

I stereotyped geography which is okay to do since it does follow some predictable patterns and is pretty constant in its appearance and properties.

My assumption is that the guilty associates would be dropping what they have been doing lately to pass the time and picked up some new routines.

[slackmaster]

45. Let us know when you find out something relevant

To your assumption that the rifle came from the USA.

[applegrove]

46. Or from an arms race 'back in the day'. I just drove by

about 60 Canadian flags at half mast & 1 American one earlier in the day. First things first.

Then we can talk about the lifecycle of weapon - next week.

[radar]

13. Yeah...

...The expensive, co-ordinated publicity campaign on tv, radio, & print, to keep gov't off the 2nd amendment is quite subdued when any of the other amendments on that same paper are threatened.

"Just enforce the existing laws" becomes "we need more laws!"
Bill Of Rights
http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

* Hey, Bob, you're outta tp in the bathroom! Ah, just tear off a piece of that Constitution I got on the wall; but, not the 2nd amendment part - I gotta know I have the right to kill if need be; go ahead wipe your a$$ with any of the other parts, though....

[lostinacause]

37. There is no hypocrisy on the issue of "Nuisance Lawsuits"

I don't know exactly how the proposed changes to the system go but there are good guidelines for a system that does not have punitive damages. There are some conditions that would have to be met for it to be economically efficient including compensation for lawyer fees changed by the loosing parties. I will however only focus on the issue of punitive damages that go above adequate compensation for losses suffered.

Two things happen when punitive damages are in place. The first is that people are more likely to be negligent (and in some cases intentionally be negligent) to collect the compensation for injuries. This is because they are rewarded for being negligent. The second is that employers will be forced to over account for risk of harm. Both of these lead to higher (real variable) costs for companies which will inevitably decrease employment and salaries. Competition from foreign firms who don't have the same laws makes removing punitive damages more beneficial.




There are two reasons why people hold on to their guns; the allusion of power and the belief that they are above statistics. If people took a more rational approach to their decisions it is likely there would be a larger movement towards more controls.