if you want your healthcare to be affordable, you want healthcare to be mandatory
take 2 scenarios:
1. voluntary health insurance
take 5 people. 2 of whom are old and sick, 3 of whom are young and healthy. since insurance is voluntary, only the old and sick get health insurance. if their monthly health costs are $2,000, then the insurance companies have to charge, at least, premiums of $1,000/ month to cover costs. additionally, one of the 3 young and healthy breaks his arm. he avoids the bill because he can't afford it. this additional cost is passed onto the state so the hospital doesn't go belly up, and we pay for the young healthy guy's broken arm with our taxes (in other words, we already have universal healthcare, just paid for in the most expensive and ridiculous way possible)
2. mandatory health insurance
now, all 5 people above have insurance. so the old and sick and their $2,000 monthly costs is split 5 ways at a premium of $400/ month. cheaper health insurance for the old and sick to afford. not cheaper health insurance for the young and healthy though, right? well, 2 things: one, that guy who breaks his arm, well now: no worries, he has insurance, he hasn't destroyed his credit or had to declare bankruptcy just because he broke his arm: we are teaching him financial responsibility. secondly, in most societies, paying for the healthcare of the old and sick is simply called morality
finally, those who are against universal health care portray it as the hard working paying for the health care of the lazy, like the idiot who posted that insurance industry propaganda above at the top of this thread. when of course, as we see in the scenario above, we already have universal health care (since we can't turn people away form the hospital), but currently, we encourage the young to FREELOAD and act irresponsibly by avoiding bills they can't afford if, for example, they break their arm. in other words, universal healthcare ENCOURAGES financial responsibility, it doesn't discourage it. and meanwhile, voluntary health insurance encourages freeloading and financial irresponsibility
and, as you note, there are two types of healthcare: crisis care and preventive care. the insurance industry LOVES crisis care because its so expensive and they make so much money off of it. in fact, the usa excels in crisis care over say canada, uk, or france. but guess what? in canada, uk, france, since there is incentive to save money (since there is no comparable insurance industry clout), there are incentives to PREVENT the expensive heart attack in the first place with lipitor, etc
so what would you rather have? cheaper healthcare and no heart attack? or a heart attack and a huge bill? we know what the insurance industry would choose, what do you choose?
we are all idiots, our own worst enemies. the tragedy/ black comedy of what we are predisposed to believe, and how easily that is manipulated to rob us blind
so i'll make you a deal: i'll weep over americans believing corporate propaganda over their own self interests, and laugh at bulgarians believing russian propaganda over their own self interests. you weep over bulgarians believing russian propaganda over their own self interests, and laugh at americans believing corporate propaganda over their own self interests
everyone should have health insurance. what is so strange about that concept? what is preferable to you? people turned away from the hospital if they can't pay? you provide the straw man of the hard working person paying for the lazy man's healthcare. i present to you the fact of hard working americans denied health care because they can't afford it. do you understand reality yet? or has your mind been preprogrammed by health insurance propaganda?
2. Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal owns a 7 percent stake in News Corp
3. Saudia Arabia is deeply unnerved by the revolutions sweeping aside the old crusty strongmen in the Middle East
So Prince bin Talal gets on the phone with Glenn Beck's bosses. Next day, Glenn Beck starts spouting off against internet tools that Middle Eastern revolutionaries use.
Yes, the same Glenn Beck who wears a Revolutionary War era Tricorner Hat and wraps himself in the American flag.
The tragedy is the people who reject, for example, Barack Obama as a "communist" and "secret muslim" and "antiamerican who wants to destroy the USA" and doubt he was born here. Incredibly low IQ lies and smears. Low IQ lies and smears spread by people who wrap themselves in the American flag, but who are of course working for corporate and foreign interests, corporate interests squarely pointed against what is good for Americans and American interests. And millions of Americans beleive this nonsense! Why? Because the "information" is presented to them, not by appealing to their sense of reason, but by appealing to their emotions: fear, hysteria, panic. Classic propaganda psychology.
The tragedy is people who view Fox News as "American" and don't know they are basically being propagandized and programmed against, for example, their own self-intererests, like higher quality, more affordable health care. Because the insurance industry might make less money. Better that Grandma die 10 years earlier than we succumb to evil SOCIALISM. Seriously?!
Sheep, whose Real American (tm) opinions are bought and paid for by Saudi Oil money, fat cat corporate dollars, and yes, the Chinese Communist Party.
So to summarize: Obama is a Communist and a Muslim Terrorist and anti-American... propaganda deeply believed by millions of Americans whose brains are basically programmed via a regular dose of fear and hysteria by smearmongers like Glenn Beck, whose ideological whoring... drum roll please... is paid for by actual Saudi Wahhabists and Chinese Communist controlled corporations!
look to nyc. washington dc is an anomaly because people just buy their guns next door in gun happy virginia
"by the time you've taken aim at your target, several others have taken aim at your head; you'll be *MUCH* less likely to draw your weapon. Even if you're a hothead."
this is of course a boy scout fantasy, not reality
in gun happy arizona, nobody shot back as the congresswoman and people around her were mowed down, they had to tackle him. heck when ronald reagan was shot with SECRET SERVICE around, no one shot back, they tackled him. this notion that you are going to stop a hothead running around shooting people by being armed yourself is simply not how reality works. and it is exactly this sort of lack of understanding of reality, that motivates good people to get guns, when the simple truth is, simply having a gun changes scenarios and outcomes in such a way that you are more likely to get shot or use your gun in such a way that even though well-meaning, you do more harm than good
the idea that rednecks in the woods will stop the rise of fascism is a joke, a myth, a bad hollywood movie. not reality. in fact, if there is any relation between paranoids hording guns in the woods and the rise of fascism it is that paranoids hording guns are the type of pyschology that fascism grows in. paranoids hording guns in the woods are seeds in which fascism grows, not a protection from it. if the usa ever falls under the boot of fascism, god forbid, it will start with heavily armed factions. wake up from your quasireligious belief in the holy infallibility of the gun
tell me, how many would gelman have killed if he had a gun instead of a knife?
understand yet?
this gelman is exacly the sort of casual hothead that i am talking about: he grabbed a knife, because that's all he could grab. he's in new york city, which has tight gun control. if a gun were easier for him to get, what scenario would play out? how many more dead?
and please don't tell me an well-armed city would stop him. in gun happy arizona, nobody shot back as the congresswoman and people around her were mowed down, they had to tackle him. heck when ronald reagan was shot with SECRET SERVICE around, no one shot back, they tackled him. this notion that you are going to stop a hothead running around shooting people by being armed yourself is some sort of boy scout fantasy, not reality
if you make guns harder to get, less hotheads like gelman get guns. simple as that! thank you for linking to this timely story to illustrate my point
well yeah, duh. but a lot less death overall. that's the point. surely you understand it is easier for a hothead to kill more people by spraying a crowd with bullets than it is for the same hothead to run through the crowd stabbing people, right?
"degrading the rights of all due fear of actions for of the few has never successfully accomplished anything but degrading the rights of all."
There are natural limitations on all rights and freedoms.
For example: freedom of speech.
I cannot yell fire in a crowded theater. I cannot stand outside your window at 3 AM with a megaphone preaching gun control. I cannot slander or libel you. There are, in other words, common sense limits on my right to free speech.
Just like there should be common sense limits on your right to a firearm.
The problem is a country that sees no problem with a mentally deranged individual just going into a store and buying a glock with an extended magazine. Do you have a problem with that reality? I do.
So who is impinging on whose rights and freedoms? Because I think my right to live is pretty obviously limited by the bullets flying around my cities due to madmen and hotheads, because you and others view guns as religious totem objects of absolute virtue.
Your irrational insistence on no limits whatsoever on firearm purchases in this country leads to hundreds of deaths every year, that simply do not have to happen, if we simply limit guns.
Especially since there is no earthly reason to own one in civil society. It certainly doesn't protect you, that's an illusion. I will not suffer more deaths because you and others who can't think the problem through can't see the real truth of unlimited guns: death, death, death. On our streets. For no reason whatsoever except the blind stubbornness and ignorance of some caught up in almost religious passion about guns. Look to the countless deaths because of easy guns in your country. What does it mean to you?
(And I of course already know your answer: "It means I should be more heavily armed to protect myself." Ah, the bliss of delusion.)
when our Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment, they were talking about Native Americans and Redcoats and the frontier and muskets. Not concealed handguns in the middle of cities. If the Founding Fathers were to witness how the meaning of the Second Amendment has been perverted by the NRA (who work for gun manufacturers: increase profits, be damned the consequences), they would be angry, not supportive. the common perception that the second amendment somehow supports the ridiculous status quo of guns in america is complete nonsense
secondly, the idea that rednecks in the woods will stop the rise of fascism is a joke, a myth, a bad hollywood movie. not reality. in fact, if there is any relation between paranoids hording guns in the woods and the rise of fascism it is that paranoids hording guns are the type of pyschology that fascism grows in. paranoids hording guns in the woods are seeds in which fascism grows, not a protection from it. if the usa erver falls under the boot of fascism, god forbid, it will start with heavily armed factions. wake up from your quasireligious belief in the holy infallibility of the gun
The problem is a country that sees no problem with a mentally deranged individual just going into a store and buying a glock with an extended magazine. Do you have a problem with that reality? I do.
So who is impinging on whose rights and freedoms? Because I think my right to live is pretty obviously limited by the bullets flying around my cities due to madmen and hotheads, because you and others view guns as religious totem objects of absolute virtue. Your irrational insistence on no limits whatsoever on firearm purchases in this country leads to hundreds of deaths every year, that simply do not have to happen, if we simply limit guns.
Especially since there is no earthly reason to own one in civil society. It certainly doesn't protect you, that's an illusion. I will not suffer more deaths because you and others who can't think the problem through can't see the real truth of unlimited guns: death, death, death. On our streets. For no reason whatsoever except the blind stubbornness and ignorance of some caught up in almost religious passion about guns. Look to the countless deaths because of easy guns in your country. What does it mean to you?
(And I of course already know your answer: "It means I should be more heavily armed to protect myself." Ah, the bliss of delusion.)
UK?! You do realize that a lot less senseless death in the UK than in the USA, right?
Look: when our Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment, they were talking about Native Americans and Redcoats and the frontier and muskets. Not concealed handguns in the middle of cities. If the Founding Fathers were to witness how the meaning of the Second Amendment has been perverted by the NRA (who work for gun manufacturers: increase profits, be damned the consequences), they would be angry, not supportive.
It is time for the USA to join every other sober industrialized nation in the world and severely restrict guns. Reason will prevail, it always does. Even though we will pay a horrible price in senseless deaths until the stink finally gets too high. Eventually, too high even for those with an irrational religious conviction about the virtuousness of guns. The rest of us are waiting for you to finally come to their senses. We're not too patient though, we're sick of the carnage. Hurry up and figure it out.
The idea that a well armed populace is safer is clearly a boy scout fantasy. No one shot back when Reagan was shot, the gunman was tackled, even with Secret Service all around. In gun happy Tucson, no one shot back at Jared Loughner. The gunman was tackled, again. This idea that some heroic virtuous gun owner will intervene in these events is Hollywood, not reality.
The point of stricter gun control is to simply keep them out of the hands of the insane and the casual hotheaded. Gun proponents counter that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
No one doubts that criminal masterminds will still get guns, even if they are illegal. But if guns are hard to get, casual hotheads and the insane will indeed not get guns. Because of their nature: they aren't trying too hard, at much of anything. They get a gun simply because they are easy to get, and again, since they aren't trying to hard to rationalize anything, they'll use their gun instead of their mouth or their fists. It is because of these kinds of people that gun control is necessary. Hundreds of pointless deaths every year in the USA at the hands of casual hotheads and the insane is the reason why.
It is casual hotheads who shoot up discos because some chick looked at them funny, and the insane who shoot up malls, schools, and politicians. Meanwhile, by definition of what a criminal mastermind is, their gun use will be careful, precise, and well thought out. Such that even if you are well-armed, you will find yourself dead before you even have a chance. The protection of a gun is simply an illusion.
Anyone smart and armed and bad intentioned is going to use their gun in such a way that you have no time to react: they anticipate your options and make sure you don't get the drop on them. Meanwhile, casual hotheads and the insane are random in their behavior. You don't have enough time to anticipate their behavior because there is no rhyme or reason about how they behave: you're already shot before you have a chance to react. The protection of a gun is simply an illusion.
Why won't a part of this country's population listen to reasonable limitations on a device in civil society whose only purpose is to kill? It's like some sort of religious conviction: some people can't think rationally about the lack of a proper role of guns in civil society.
Look: when our Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment, they were talking about Native Americans and Redcoats and the frontier and muskets. Not concealed handguns in the middle of cities. If the Founding Fathers were to witness how the meaning of the Second Amendment has been perverted by the NRA (who work for gun manufacturers: increase profits, be damned the consequences), they would be angry, not supportive.
It is time for the USA to join every other sober industrialized nation in the world and severely restrict guns. Reason will prevail, it always does. Even though we will pay a horrible price in senseless deaths until the stink finally gets too high. Eventually, too high even for those with an irrational religious conviction about the virtuousness of guns. The rest of us are waiting for you to finally come to their senses. We're not too patient though, we're sick of the carnage. Hurry up and figure it out.
no, not a coincidence. both germany and japan are extremely allergic to war, armies, and weapons in general, due to their horrible humbling experiences as fascist countries. you wonder if it will take a similar experience for the usa to become similarly allergic. because there's one simple truth about fascism and guns: heavily armed paranoid people is not a protection from fascism, heavily armed paranoid people are the soil in which fascist movements grow
so why does japan and germany, with stringent gun control, have so much less senseless deaths than the usa? germany and japan have knife wielding maniacs, and also gun shooting maniacs. but a heck of a lot LESS. that's the point
the simple availability of a tool in general cuts down on the whether that tool is used or not. you talk about the deviant mind? i'm not talking about the deviant mind: i'm talking about the dimwitted thug, who, if he can't get a gun, just doesn't have a gun. i have no illusions that some criminal masterminds and hard working boy scouts will still get guns, no matter what the laws. but there is a class of person, who does most of the senseless killing in the usa, that is not thinking hard or trying hard about anything, and has a gun, only because guns are easy to get. make them hard to get, and such a low iq lazy go-with-the-flow loser simply won't have a gun
countries with more stringent gun control like japan, germany, etc., still have gun crime, but a heck of a lot less gun crime than the pointless carnage and mayhem that defines the usa
furthermore, anyone can get a knife. there was a guy in japan who went into a school and stabbed a bunch of kids
but by and large, the usa has tons more senseless homicides per capita, period, than japan. simply because more firepower = more deaths
yes, you can kill someone with a knife. but it take work. set one guy with a knife on a crowd, versus one guy with a gun spraying that crowd with bullets, and you tell me who is going to do more killing. send a guy into a field with oxen, versus a guy into a field with a john deere tractor. the technology you use and the job you set out to do obviously makes a difference
the tool DOES matter: it amplifies the intent to kill, it makes it easier than with knives. so cut down on guns, and there will be less senseless death
you do realize that countries with more stringent gun control like japan, germany, etc., still have gun crime, but a heck of a lot less gun crime than the pointless carnage and mayhem that defines the usa. kid of counteracts your central premise and supports mine, no?
in all seriousness, i have zero doubt that if you make guns hard to get, that knives, bombs, ice cream trucks mowing down kids in the park, etc.: mayhem will still continue. some people, when they commit to killing, they will kill. i don't in any way doubt that
my point is to simply stop the CASUAL killer. you know, the guy who just isn't thinking that much about it. he's got the gun in his waistband, the chick looked at him funny, obvious conclusion: shoot up the night club. such a person is not the kind of person who painstakingly make his own gun powder and watch police patrol patterns to set the bomb at the proper time. such a person, if a gun is too hard to get, they simply don't have a gun. they just aren't trying that hard
japan and germany have tight gun control. yet japan and germany still have tragedies with guns
but guess what? A HECK OF A LOT LESS TRAGEDIES than the usa
that's the "makes complete sense" part you are missing. that's the whole point: less senseless deaths
but i can hear the gun lovers now: OMG YOU HATE FREEDOM YOU ARE FASCIST WHARRRRGARBBBBL
gee, maybe i just think the regular litany of pointless carnage in the usa is wrong? so guns should have sane controls on them? could that be my motivation?
pfffffft
it's like arguing with creationists about evolution when you talk about sober limitations on guns in the usa. gun onwership is not a topic you can have a sane conversation with some americans, its like a quasireligious principle to some people. pathetic
gun control is not meant to stop criminal masterminds and intelligent determined boy scouts. its meant to stop casual hotheads and insane people. if you stop people from getting guns easily someone like yourself and criminal geniuses will still have guns. nobody thinks making guns harder to get will stop someone like you
so who won't get guns? the kind of guy who shoots up a disco because a chick looked at him funny or the guy who shot the congresswoman in arizona. these people aren't fine thinking specimens: they get guns simply because they are easy to get. so make guns less easy to get, and insane people and casual hotheads won't get guns. that's it
you have to understand, they aren't trying that hard, at much of anything in life, and it is these sort of people that cause all of the tragedy with guns
i would be able to understand gun lovers a little better if they didn't freak out at the most sane obvious and prudent restrictions on guns
to be precise: it is still true that the west has no right to judge other cultures. however, from a HUMAN perspective, not a western one, it is entirely appropriate to criticize cultures, including western ones, that fail to live up to simple universal concepts of human decency. a japanese or a brazilian can find elements of saudi culture repulsive for the exact same reasons as a german or a swede can. therefore, its not about western cultural imperialism here, it is about saudi culture defiling universal HUMAN concepts of dignity, not western concepts
and this is not to say that german or brazilian or american cultures don't have problems. they do. but as a simple matter of proportionality, saudi culture is WAY out there in terms of completely unacceptable norms of behavior, and is most ripe for being called out on its truly heinous levels of transgression against human dignity
therefore, as a HUMAN BEING, not a westerner, i condemn saudi culture for being barbaric, cruel, and, as a matter of simple human morality, that it not be tolerated
not tolerated?
yes, tolerance of intolerance is intolerance by extension. intolerance of intolerance is the only logically coherent way to process true tolerance: you don't tolerate the kkk, you don't tolerate nazism, and you don't tolerate the rank disgusting medieval culture of saudi arabia
Slashdot Mirror
if you want your healthcare to be affordable, you want healthcare to be mandatory
take 2 scenarios:
1. voluntary health insurance
take 5 people. 2 of whom are old and sick, 3 of whom are young and healthy. since insurance is voluntary, only the old and sick get health insurance. if their monthly health costs are $2,000, then the insurance companies have to charge, at least, premiums of $1,000/ month to cover costs. additionally, one of the 3 young and healthy breaks his arm. he avoids the bill because he can't afford it. this additional cost is passed onto the state so the hospital doesn't go belly up, and we pay for the young healthy guy's broken arm with our taxes (in other words, we already have universal healthcare, just paid for in the most expensive and ridiculous way possible)
2. mandatory health insurance
now, all 5 people above have insurance. so the old and sick and their $2,000 monthly costs is split 5 ways at a premium of $400/ month. cheaper health insurance for the old and sick to afford. not cheaper health insurance for the young and healthy though, right? well, 2 things: one, that guy who breaks his arm, well now: no worries, he has insurance, he hasn't destroyed his credit or had to declare bankruptcy just because he broke his arm: we are teaching him financial responsibility. secondly, in most societies, paying for the healthcare of the old and sick is simply called morality
finally, those who are against universal health care portray it as the hard working paying for the health care of the lazy, like the idiot who posted that insurance industry propaganda above at the top of this thread. when of course, as we see in the scenario above, we already have universal health care (since we can't turn people away form the hospital), but currently, we encourage the young to FREELOAD and act irresponsibly by avoiding bills they can't afford if, for example, they break their arm. in other words, universal healthcare ENCOURAGES financial responsibility, it doesn't discourage it. and meanwhile, voluntary health insurance encourages freeloading and financial irresponsibility
and, as you note, there are two types of healthcare: crisis care and preventive care. the insurance industry LOVES crisis care because its so expensive and they make so much money off of it. in fact, the usa excels in crisis care over say canada, uk, or france. but guess what? in canada, uk, france, since there is incentive to save money (since there is no comparable insurance industry clout), there are incentives to PREVENT the expensive heart attack in the first place with lipitor, etc
so what would you rather have? cheaper healthcare and no heart attack? or a heart attack and a huge bill? we know what the insurance industry would choose, what do you choose?
we are all idiots, our own worst enemies. the tragedy/ black comedy of what we are predisposed to believe, and how easily that is manipulated to rob us blind
so i'll make you a deal: i'll weep over americans believing corporate propaganda over their own self interests, and laugh at bulgarians believing russian propaganda over their own self interests. you weep over bulgarians believing russian propaganda over their own self interests, and laugh at americans believing corporate propaganda over their own self interests
deal? ;-)
everyone should have health insurance. what is so strange about that concept? what is preferable to you? people turned away from the hospital if they can't pay? you provide the straw man of the hard working person paying for the lazy man's healthcare. i present to you the fact of hard working americans denied health care because they can't afford it. do you understand reality yet? or has your mind been preprogrammed by health insurance propaganda?
1. Glenn Beck works for Fox News
2. Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal owns a 7 percent stake in News Corp
3. Saudia Arabia is deeply unnerved by the revolutions sweeping aside the old crusty strongmen in the Middle East
So Prince bin Talal gets on the phone with Glenn Beck's bosses. Next day, Glenn Beck starts spouting off against internet tools that Middle Eastern revolutionaries use.
Yes, the same Glenn Beck who wears a Revolutionary War era Tricorner Hat and wraps himself in the American flag.
The tragedy is the people who reject, for example, Barack Obama as a "communist" and "secret muslim" and "antiamerican who wants to destroy the USA" and doubt he was born here. Incredibly low IQ lies and smears. Low IQ lies and smears spread by people who wrap themselves in the American flag, but who are of course working for corporate and foreign interests, corporate interests squarely pointed against what is good for Americans and American interests. And millions of Americans beleive this nonsense! Why? Because the "information" is presented to them, not by appealing to their sense of reason, but by appealing to their emotions: fear, hysteria, panic. Classic propaganda psychology.
The tragedy is people who view Fox News as "American" and don't know they are basically being propagandized and programmed against, for example, their own self-intererests, like higher quality, more affordable health care. Because the insurance industry might make less money. Better that Grandma die 10 years earlier than we succumb to evil SOCIALISM. Seriously?!
Sheep, whose Real American (tm) opinions are bought and paid for by Saudi Oil money, fat cat corporate dollars, and yes, the Chinese Communist Party.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/world/asia/26murdoch.html
So to summarize: Obama is a Communist and a Muslim Terrorist and anti-American... propaganda deeply believed by millions of Americans whose brains are basically programmed via a regular dose of fear and hysteria by smearmongers like Glenn Beck, whose ideological whoring... drum roll please... is paid for by actual Saudi Wahhabists and Chinese Communist controlled corporations!
If it wasn't so tragic, it would be hilarious.
i only use monster brand digital AV cables. the best buy salesman assured me they were designed specifically to resist x-class solar flares
look to nyc. washington dc is an anomaly because people just buy their guns next door in gun happy virginia
"by the time you've taken aim at your target, several others have taken aim at your head; you'll be *MUCH* less likely to draw your weapon. Even if you're a hothead."
this is of course a boy scout fantasy, not reality
in gun happy arizona, nobody shot back as the congresswoman and people around her were mowed down, they had to tackle him. heck when ronald reagan was shot with SECRET SERVICE around, no one shot back, they tackled him. this notion that you are going to stop a hothead running around shooting people by being armed yourself is simply not how reality works. and it is exactly this sort of lack of understanding of reality, that motivates good people to get guns, when the simple truth is, simply having a gun changes scenarios and outcomes in such a way that you are more likely to get shot or use your gun in such a way that even though well-meaning, you do more harm than good
the idea that rednecks in the woods will stop the rise of fascism is a joke, a myth, a bad hollywood movie. not reality. in fact, if there is any relation between paranoids hording guns in the woods and the rise of fascism it is that paranoids hording guns are the type of pyschology that fascism grows in. paranoids hording guns in the woods are seeds in which fascism grows, not a protection from it. if the usa ever falls under the boot of fascism, god forbid, it will start with heavily armed factions. wake up from your quasireligious belief in the holy infallibility of the gun
thank you for linking to the gelman massacre
tell me, how many would gelman have killed if he had a gun instead of a knife?
understand yet?
this gelman is exacly the sort of casual hothead that i am talking about: he grabbed a knife, because that's all he could grab. he's in new york city, which has tight gun control. if a gun were easier for him to get, what scenario would play out? how many more dead?
and please don't tell me an well-armed city would stop him. in gun happy arizona, nobody shot back as the congresswoman and people around her were mowed down, they had to tackle him. heck when ronald reagan was shot with SECRET SERVICE around, no one shot back, they tackled him. this notion that you are going to stop a hothead running around shooting people by being armed yourself is some sort of boy scout fantasy, not reality
if you make guns harder to get, less hotheads like gelman get guns. simple as that! thank you for linking to this timely story to illustrate my point
well yeah, duh. but a lot less death overall. that's the point. surely you understand it is easier for a hothead to kill more people by spraying a crowd with bullets than it is for the same hothead to run through the crowd stabbing people, right?
Pease mod parent up. A gun store manager preaching common sense: gun ownership needs common sense limitations
"degrading the rights of all due fear of actions for of the few has never successfully accomplished anything but degrading the rights of all."
There are natural limitations on all rights and freedoms.
For example: freedom of speech.
I cannot yell fire in a crowded theater. I cannot stand outside your window at 3 AM with a megaphone preaching gun control. I cannot slander or libel you. There are, in other words, common sense limits on my right to free speech.
Just like there should be common sense limits on your right to a firearm.
The problem is a country that sees no problem with a mentally deranged individual just going into a store and buying a glock with an extended magazine. Do you have a problem with that reality? I do.
So who is impinging on whose rights and freedoms? Because I think my right to live is pretty obviously limited by the bullets flying around my cities due to madmen and hotheads, because you and others view guns as religious totem objects of absolute virtue.
Your irrational insistence on no limits whatsoever on firearm purchases in this country leads to hundreds of deaths every year, that simply do not have to happen, if we simply limit guns.
Especially since there is no earthly reason to own one in civil society. It certainly doesn't protect you, that's an illusion. I will not suffer more deaths because you and others who can't think the problem through can't see the real truth of unlimited guns: death, death, death. On our streets. For no reason whatsoever except the blind stubbornness and ignorance of some caught up in almost religious passion about guns. Look to the countless deaths because of easy guns in your country. What does it mean to you?
(And I of course already know your answer: "It means I should be more heavily armed to protect myself." Ah, the bliss of delusion.)
thank you for your one anecdote. its amazing how you extrapolate so much truth form your one scenario
of course, in reality, with many data points, we find the simple truth that countries with more gun control have much less senseless death, period
when our Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment, they were talking about Native Americans and Redcoats and the frontier and muskets. Not concealed handguns in the middle of cities. If the Founding Fathers were to witness how the meaning of the Second Amendment has been perverted by the NRA (who work for gun manufacturers: increase profits, be damned the consequences), they would be angry, not supportive. the common perception that the second amendment somehow supports the ridiculous status quo of guns in america is complete nonsense
secondly, the idea that rednecks in the woods will stop the rise of fascism is a joke, a myth, a bad hollywood movie. not reality. in fact, if there is any relation between paranoids hording guns in the woods and the rise of fascism it is that paranoids hording guns are the type of pyschology that fascism grows in. paranoids hording guns in the woods are seeds in which fascism grows, not a protection from it. if the usa erver falls under the boot of fascism, god forbid, it will start with heavily armed factions. wake up from your quasireligious belief in the holy infallibility of the gun
The problem is a country that sees no problem with a mentally deranged individual just going into a store and buying a glock with an extended magazine. Do you have a problem with that reality? I do.
So who is impinging on whose rights and freedoms? Because I think my right to live is pretty obviously limited by the bullets flying around my cities due to madmen and hotheads, because you and others view guns as religious totem objects of absolute virtue. Your irrational insistence on no limits whatsoever on firearm purchases in this country leads to hundreds of deaths every year, that simply do not have to happen, if we simply limit guns.
Especially since there is no earthly reason to own one in civil society. It certainly doesn't protect you, that's an illusion. I will not suffer more deaths because you and others who can't think the problem through can't see the real truth of unlimited guns: death, death, death. On our streets. For no reason whatsoever except the blind stubbornness and ignorance of some caught up in almost religious passion about guns. Look to the countless deaths because of easy guns in your country. What does it mean to you?
(And I of course already know your answer: "It means I should be more heavily armed to protect myself." Ah, the bliss of delusion.)
UK?! You do realize that a lot less senseless death in the UK than in the USA, right?
Look: when our Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment, they were talking about Native Americans and Redcoats and the frontier and muskets. Not concealed handguns in the middle of cities. If the Founding Fathers were to witness how the meaning of the Second Amendment has been perverted by the NRA (who work for gun manufacturers: increase profits, be damned the consequences), they would be angry, not supportive.
It is time for the USA to join every other sober industrialized nation in the world and severely restrict guns. Reason will prevail, it always does. Even though we will pay a horrible price in senseless deaths until the stink finally gets too high. Eventually, too high even for those with an irrational religious conviction about the virtuousness of guns. The rest of us are waiting for you to finally come to their senses. We're not too patient though, we're sick of the carnage. Hurry up and figure it out.
The idea that a well armed populace is safer is clearly a boy scout fantasy. No one shot back when Reagan was shot, the gunman was tackled, even with Secret Service all around. In gun happy Tucson, no one shot back at Jared Loughner. The gunman was tackled, again. This idea that some heroic virtuous gun owner will intervene in these events is Hollywood, not reality.
The point of stricter gun control is to simply keep them out of the hands of the insane and the casual hotheaded. Gun proponents counter that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
No one doubts that criminal masterminds will still get guns, even if they are illegal. But if guns are hard to get, casual hotheads and the insane will indeed not get guns. Because of their nature: they aren't trying too hard, at much of anything. They get a gun simply because they are easy to get, and again, since they aren't trying to hard to rationalize anything, they'll use their gun instead of their mouth or their fists. It is because of these kinds of people that gun control is necessary. Hundreds of pointless deaths every year in the USA at the hands of casual hotheads and the insane is the reason why.
It is casual hotheads who shoot up discos because some chick looked at them funny, and the insane who shoot up malls, schools, and politicians. Meanwhile, by definition of what a criminal mastermind is, their gun use will be careful, precise, and well thought out. Such that even if you are well-armed, you will find yourself dead before you even have a chance. The protection of a gun is simply an illusion.
Anyone smart and armed and bad intentioned is going to use their gun in such a way that you have no time to react: they anticipate your options and make sure you don't get the drop on them. Meanwhile, casual hotheads and the insane are random in their behavior. You don't have enough time to anticipate their behavior because there is no rhyme or reason about how they behave: you're already shot before you have a chance to react. The protection of a gun is simply an illusion.
Why won't a part of this country's population listen to reasonable limitations on a device in civil society whose only purpose is to kill? It's like some sort of religious conviction: some people can't think rationally about the lack of a proper role of guns in civil society.
Look: when our Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment, they were talking about Native Americans and Redcoats and the frontier and muskets. Not concealed handguns in the middle of cities. If the Founding Fathers were to witness how the meaning of the Second Amendment has been perverted by the NRA (who work for gun manufacturers: increase profits, be damned the consequences), they would be angry, not supportive.
It is time for the USA to join every other sober industrialized nation in the world and severely restrict guns. Reason will prevail, it always does. Even though we will pay a horrible price in senseless deaths until the stink finally gets too high. Eventually, too high even for those with an irrational religious conviction about the virtuousness of guns. The rest of us are waiting for you to finally come to their senses. We're not too patient though, we're sick of the carnage. Hurry up and figure it out.
no, not a coincidence. both germany and japan are extremely allergic to war, armies, and weapons in general, due to their horrible humbling experiences as fascist countries. you wonder if it will take a similar experience for the usa to become similarly allergic. because there's one simple truth about fascism and guns: heavily armed paranoid people is not a protection from fascism, heavily armed paranoid people are the soil in which fascist movements grow
so why does japan and germany, with stringent gun control, have so much less senseless deaths than the usa? germany and japan have knife wielding maniacs, and also gun shooting maniacs. but a heck of a lot LESS. that's the point
the simple availability of a tool in general cuts down on the whether that tool is used or not. you talk about the deviant mind? i'm not talking about the deviant mind: i'm talking about the dimwitted thug, who, if he can't get a gun, just doesn't have a gun. i have no illusions that some criminal masterminds and hard working boy scouts will still get guns, no matter what the laws. but there is a class of person, who does most of the senseless killing in the usa, that is not thinking hard or trying hard about anything, and has a gun, only because guns are easy to get. make them hard to get, and such a low iq lazy go-with-the-flow loser simply won't have a gun
countries with more stringent gun control like japan, germany, etc., still have gun crime, but a heck of a lot less gun crime than the pointless carnage and mayhem that defines the usa
furthermore, anyone can get a knife. there was a guy in japan who went into a school and stabbed a bunch of kids
but by and large, the usa has tons more senseless homicides per capita, period, than japan. simply because more firepower = more deaths
yes, you can kill someone with a knife. but it take work. set one guy with a knife on a crowd, versus one guy with a gun spraying that crowd with bullets, and you tell me who is going to do more killing. send a guy into a field with oxen, versus a guy into a field with a john deere tractor. the technology you use and the job you set out to do obviously makes a difference
the tool DOES matter: it amplifies the intent to kill, it makes it easier than with knives. so cut down on guns, and there will be less senseless death
you do realize that countries with more stringent gun control like japan, germany, etc., still have gun crime, but a heck of a lot less gun crime than the pointless carnage and mayhem that defines the usa. kid of counteracts your central premise and supports mine, no?
all your base are belong to hotheads?
in all seriousness, i have zero doubt that if you make guns hard to get, that knives, bombs, ice cream trucks mowing down kids in the park, etc.: mayhem will still continue. some people, when they commit to killing, they will kill. i don't in any way doubt that
my point is to simply stop the CASUAL killer. you know, the guy who just isn't thinking that much about it. he's got the gun in his waistband, the chick looked at him funny, obvious conclusion: shoot up the night club. such a person is not the kind of person who painstakingly make his own gun powder and watch police patrol patterns to set the bomb at the proper time. such a person, if a gun is too hard to get, they simply don't have a gun. they just aren't trying that hard
CASUAL killers. that's my target. get it?
japan and germany have tight gun control. yet japan and germany still have tragedies with guns
but guess what? A HECK OF A LOT LESS TRAGEDIES than the usa
that's the "makes complete sense" part you are missing. that's the whole point: less senseless deaths
but i can hear the gun lovers now: OMG YOU HATE FREEDOM YOU ARE FASCIST WHARRRRGARBBBBL
gee, maybe i just think the regular litany of pointless carnage in the usa is wrong? so guns should have sane controls on them? could that be my motivation?
pfffffft
it's like arguing with creationists about evolution when you talk about sober limitations on guns in the usa. gun onwership is not a topic you can have a sane conversation with some americans, its like a quasireligious principle to some people. pathetic
gun control is not meant to stop criminal masterminds and intelligent determined boy scouts. its meant to stop casual hotheads and insane people. if you stop people from getting guns easily someone like yourself and criminal geniuses will still have guns. nobody thinks making guns harder to get will stop someone like you
so who won't get guns? the kind of guy who shoots up a disco because a chick looked at him funny or the guy who shot the congresswoman in arizona. these people aren't fine thinking specimens: they get guns simply because they are easy to get. so make guns less easy to get, and insane people and casual hotheads won't get guns. that's it
you have to understand, they aren't trying that hard, at much of anything in life, and it is these sort of people that cause all of the tragedy with guns
i would be able to understand gun lovers a little better if they didn't freak out at the most sane obvious and prudent restrictions on guns
multiculturalism has failed
to be precise: it is still true that the west has no right to judge other cultures. however, from a HUMAN perspective, not a western one, it is entirely appropriate to criticize cultures, including western ones, that fail to live up to simple universal concepts of human decency. a japanese or a brazilian can find elements of saudi culture repulsive for the exact same reasons as a german or a swede can. therefore, its not about western cultural imperialism here, it is about saudi culture defiling universal HUMAN concepts of dignity, not western concepts
and this is not to say that german or brazilian or american cultures don't have problems. they do. but as a simple matter of proportionality, saudi culture is WAY out there in terms of completely unacceptable norms of behavior, and is most ripe for being called out on its truly heinous levels of transgression against human dignity
therefore, as a HUMAN BEING, not a westerner, i condemn saudi culture for being barbaric, cruel, and, as a matter of simple human morality, that it not be tolerated
not tolerated?
yes, tolerance of intolerance is intolerance by extension. intolerance of intolerance is the only logically coherent way to process true tolerance: you don't tolerate the kkk, you don't tolerate nazism, and you don't tolerate the rank disgusting medieval culture of saudi arabia
it spread to egypt
what country in the middle east should feel the sweep of historic revolution next? algeria? jordan? yemen?
no, that other backwards country
italy
seriously, what the FUCK is wrong with you italian people? why do you tolerate this joke?