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.Because carbon offset credits work so well for the environment and indulgences so well for the soul.
Say, would you mind stepping up on this crate and putting this rope around your neck? If you do mind, we'll force the issue, and stump for it under the banner of "common sense gun regulation."
Per McHenry County Sportsmen's Association:
Why would gun-makers agree to "performance-based" solutions where a government agency assesses penalty based on a manufacturers "share of the blame" when makers are already immune to civil prosecution from the consequences of a criminal's actions?And they're right when they point out "This is wrong on so many levels..."
For instance, what is the value they'll place on a human life? Won't that open the door to outrage? The gun lobby thinks your child's life is only worth...
And this lie: "Our proposal is not a tax on gun sales."
Who do they think the costs will be passed on to?
And yeah, I can see these Tribune Company Marxists, whose Chicago affiliate proposed repealing the Second Amendment as the appropriate response to Heller--standing idly by while the government pays out rewards to gun makers. Yeah, that'll happen. More likely they'll back some collectivist "community leader" who will demand the money be turned over to them--for "youth programs," you understand...
Y'know, I hadn't even read the entire Times editorial when I made that carbon offset crack, but I see it's in there--are these charlatans predictable or what?
[Per Less]