You should learn about the costs of employment verses the average salary. They are not the same and yes, there is a hell of a lot more costs to employment then healthcare. There are pension programs, employment taxes, FICA contributions, unemployment insurance and tons of other costs.
Now I'm going to ask you to use your fucking brain for at least once in your life. Learn about employment costs.
When I worked in the insurance industry we used to have a spreadsheet template that we would take to benefit fairs/employee meetings. We would punch in the employees annual salary and family situation (single/married/kids) and it would spit out the actual amount of money that the employer was paying out. This would include the salary itself, the employer portion of FICA, health insurance, disability insurance, unemployment insurance, employer contributions to 401(k)s and 403(b)s, employer matching on annuities/other investments, etc, etc, etc.
Imagine the surprise on the employees face when he learned that for every $1 he is paid in salary he actually costs the company anywhere from $1.40 to $1.60 depending on his benefits package, number of dependents, etc. Once they saw that figure it was usually enough to end the grumbling about not being paid enough.
Health insurance was the largest single post-salary expense for the employer but it was almost always less than 50% of the total. The only time I saw it exceed 50% was for expensive groups (i.e: lots of employees with health issues) and even at that it only exceeded 50% for those with families. Given this I'm somewhat skeptical that moving the burden of paying for health care to the government instead of the employers is going to make that much of a difference for the competitiveness of American industry in the global economy. Particularly when one of the ideas the Democrats are floating for financing health care "reform" is yet another tax on employers.
I'm thinking that the grandparent needs someone to come into his office and patiently explain to him that health care costs and salary are not the only items that his employer is paying to keep him on the books. He might be in for a surprise.
He might also want to look at what the real long term problem with health care is -- rising costs -- and ask himself why the current bills that the Democrats are talking about don't do a damn thing to address that problem. I'm not a particularly big fan of the idea of the government taking over even a part of the health care system but you might convince me to get behind it if the package is also going to address health care inflation. If it doesn't address that then it's not worth doing. Putting millions of more people into an entitlement program that's going to face 8%-10% annual increases in cost is simply not sustainable over the long run.
Ford's failure to declare bankruptcy put it a disadvantage - GM reduced debt costs and other costs via the courts; giving it a decided financial advantage.
GM also has 535 members of Congress and the White House auto task force dictating to it how it needs to run it's business. Have you seen all of the Congress-critters whining about how many dealerships they are planning to shutter? What happens when some jackass politician intervenes and threatens to cut off their access to the Government gravy train unless they keep more dealerships in his district open?
Ford gets to make it's decisions free of political considerations. In the long run that will more than offset whatever "advantage" GM is getting by taking government money and going through bankruptcy. Ford got to use the threat of bankruptcy to win virtually the same concessions from labor that GM did. That solves the biggest long term problem that they had. Reducing their debt load would be nice but probably not worth the cost of going through bankruptcy and losing control of the company.
A better example might be a comparison between GMAC and Ford Credit. GMAC is getting access to capital at below market rates. This may translate into the ability to offer cheaper financing than Ford Credit. Whether or not this is an issue for Ford itself remains to be seen. There are generally enough sources of cheap credit out there that people should still be able to finance purchases of Fords. It's probably better for Ford that they finance it through someone else if said financing winds up at a below market rate. Ford still gets to sell the car and they don't have to carry a 0% loan on the books for 36-48 months.
What does matter is the aggregate fuel economy improvement
I'd be willing to wager that a fair amount of the carbon that is "saved" by higher gas mileage is offset by the fact that we are building cars to replace ones that weren't worn out yet. The CARS program requires that the traded in car be taken out of service and destroyed. Unless that car was already on it's last legs (which according to the dealers I've talked to is not the case with most of the traded in cars) then we've replaced it earlier than it would have been otherwise. Building new cars generates carbon. Probably a lot more than a mere 2mpg improvement (the lowest amount to qualify for CARS IIRC) saves.
and the economic stimulus multiplier factor (which is also not in dispute). By the measurements that matter, the program has been a surprising success.
The economic stimulus factor is the only argument that you can make for it. It's too bad that the rest of the "stimulus" money the Democrats allocated wasn't as timely and targeted as this. I'm sure those new roads and pork barrel projects that aren't going to be built for 12-18 months will really help with the current recession......
I hear that Obama-care also has a feature for euthanasia of old people.
Fixed that for you;)
Sincerely yours, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh.
(One wonders if people will pick up on the sarcasm in my post or if the democratic partisan lynch mob will mod me down to -1 and show up at my doorstep with torches and pitchforks)
As I said, I don't know enough about the history of the region to form a conclusion on who is "right" and "wrong". There's been so much propaganda on both sides that it's hard to know what to believe. I do know that South Ossetia was "given" to the Georgians as a "gift" by Stalin, so it's not at all surprising that the people there might not want to be ruled by Tbilisi. On the other hand I get pretty concerned when states intervene in the internal affairs of another and redraw it's borders at gunpoint. The noises that were coming out of Moscow about reuniting the Russian speaking peoples of other areas (the Crimea) with the Russian Federation are also disturbing. We've seen that before and the results aren't pretty.
Either way though I was mainly pointing out the fact that the GP wasn't telling the whole story.
My thesis is that gun laws are there not to punish people who want to own a gun (as most seem to claim) but rather to help stifle conflicts before irrevocable damage/harm happens.
Your thesis is wrong because I've never heard of a gun control law being sold to the public under that theory. They are sold to the public as a solution to crime.
But, if after an enraged argument with your wife, you decide murder is more convenient than divorce, you're not going to go to the garage and drive the car upstairs to the bedroom to run her over.
If you decide that murder is easier than divorce then I suspect that you are so badly fucked up in the head that not having access to a firearm isn't going to be a real deterrent. "Shit, I wanted to kill this bitch but I don't have a gun so I guess I'll get a lawyer and file for divorce instead"
Well, technically they went in after repeatedly telling the Georgians to stop fucking with the south ossetians.
If that's your attitude then I certainly hope that you are in favor of the Taiwanese, Basque, and Tamil Tigers having their independence. South Ossetia was part of Georgia before the Russians went in there and took it away from them. You may regard what they did as justifiable (I honestly don't know enough to form a conclusion one way or another) but it seems dishonest to say that the Georgians were "fucking with" them without also noting that South Ossetia was a part of Georgia.
Why is it that so many people ignore the fact that it is very rare for the average citizen to even have the need to defend themselves let alone be in the position to shoot someone assualting them. Most of this gun hype is from paranoid cowards. You know what would make me worried? Having to go around wondering if you had a concealed gun, not wether I may be involved in a random criminal assault.
I like how you say that it's 'paranoid' to worry about being a victim in the first sentence then in the second say that you'd be worried about law-abiding people carrying guns. Sounds like you are the one with the paranoia problem.
Too many people will use a weapon when scared or enraged just becuase the weapon is at hand
Stop repeating the talking points of the Brady campaign and learn a little bit about the subject at hand. That's the same argument that's been used to lobby against concealed carry in every single state that has passed it. Guess what? None of the predictions of blood in the streets have come true.
Most police do not like concealed weapons either.
I question that claim because most of the firearms/concealed carry training classes I've attended are run by police officers. Most of the police officers around here support gun rights. It's generally only in the large urban areas that they have a problem with citizens exercising their right to keep and bear arms. In any event, who cares what the police think? The police don't like the requirements of the 4th amendment either. Gonna ditch that one too?
And how does your purposed system of bullet tagging handle the fact that the vast majority of guns used to commit crimes are stolen? Here's what will happen:
1) Cops find dead body at crime scene. Coroner is called and transports body back to the morgue.
2) Medical examiner digs spent bullet(s) out of the victim and sends them to the police lab.
3) Police identify the bullets as having come from a gun owned by 'John Q. Citizen'. A check of the firearms database reveals that Mr. Citizen reported this gun stolen some time ago.
4) Police interview Mr. Citizen to see if he can offer them any leads into who stole his gun. He can't, because if he could have he would have given them when the gun was originally stolen and it would have been recovered by now.
5) Dead end. Case goes into the unsolved crimes pile or is solved through some other means than ballistics.
Yes it is. A bullet will stop everyone with a few rare exceptions under extreme conditions
I'm sorry but you just don't know as much about guns and terminal ballistics as you think you do. Stopping power is a complex subject that can't be boiled down to statements like that. I hope you see the irony in accusing me of making "black and white" statements while doing the same thing yourself.
Guns are not nearly as lethal as you seem to think they are. The vast majority of people shot with a handgun actually live to talk about it. Upwards of 80% depending on which study you are reading. As I said earlier, there are really only two ways for a bullet to stop someone. It can disable or destroy the nervous system or it can create a wound which causes them to lose so much blood that they can't continue to function. This may take mere seconds (the bullet severs a major artery or destroys the heart and/or lungs) or several hours (the bullet fails to sever any major blood vessels or damage any of the internal organs) depending on what the bullet hit before it came to a rest or passed through the target.
There are numerous documented instances of bullets failing to stop people. The example that I linked to earlier is just one of the more famous ones. There are many others. Why do you think cops are trained to keep shooting a suspect until he goes down if a single bullet is enough to do the job? Why do you think that someone stabbed with a knife can continue to function until they bleed out but someone shot will be unable to do the same?
There are many but I'll stop at licensing.
Licensing may fly in your country but it will never be accepted here in the states. There are too many examples from history of gun license/registry databases eventually being used to confiscate firearms that are later deemed illegal.
Licensing gun users gives the same assurances that licensing car users does.
The only assurance a license gives you is that the person was able to drive well enough for the time it takes to pass a driving test. I see lots of people on the roadways that probably have no business having drivers licenses.
This will cut down on accidents more then crimes but gun accidents are the big killers and the easiest to avoid
Gun accidents are not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. I worry more about getting behind the wheel of my car than I do about dying in a gun accident. Hell, more people died last year in the US from drowning than died in gun accidents. Perhaps we need mandatory swimming lessons for all citizens and licensing before you can engage in the water sports?
I'd also suggest mandating by law correct storage of firearms (unloaded in a locked cabinet bolted to the foundations)
How do you intend to enforce such a law? Mandatory inspections of the homes of those who own guns? That doesn't seem to be keeping in spirit with our right against unreasonable searches and seizures. I don't think I should have to give up that right just to own a firearm.
Furthermore, "correct storage" is completely dependent upon the intended purpose of the gun (a home defense gun that's stored unloaded and in a safe that can't be opened quickly isn't much use to you) and the living arrangements of the gun owner. I live alone and don't have kids. My storage requirements are very different from those of someone who has kids or frequent visitors to his residence.
walk into the stalls and the nice attendant will hand me a.45 and a clip
You mean he hands you a magazine, right?;) Good for you for shooting the.45 though. May I ask what kind you like to shoot? I'm rather partial to the 1911 myself.
Yes it is. A gun does not require you to get within close range. It does not require you to give tour target ample opportunity to detect your approach and above all else a gun does not give your target an opportunity to run or fight back
I was referring to the physiological inhibition that most people have against murder, not the ease with which a murder can be carried out if you lack that inhibition.
from a single knife wound you have to wait for a person to die of blood loss all the time the person will be capable of moving and in most cases fighting back. With a gun shot wound this will put someone down if they are hit anywhere in the chest, shoulder or leg
Here's a clue. You don't have to be that accurate. You just have to hit someone and they go down, anywhere, even a ricochet.
I'm sorry but that just isn't the case. Bullets are not magical talismans. The only two surefire ways to stop a human being (or any animal for that matter, ever been hunting?) are to destroy the nervous system with a head or spinal shot or to lower the blood pressure to the point that they pass out. Some people will go down for other reasons (pain, shock, fear, etc) but others will keep fighting even after being mortally wounded.
I have nothing against gun ownership, just unrestricted gun ownership
Gun ownership is not "unrestricted" in this country. You can't (legally) own a gun if you were dishonorably discharged from the military, convicted of a felony or domestic violence, involuntarily committed/hospitalized, the user of illegal drugs/controlled substances, etc, etc. What new restrictions do you think need to be added and why?
This is incredibly naieve of you. Without the Allies placing such enormous war repayments on Germany would economy have been wrecked and then how could the Nazi party have risen to power (they did get voted in, voted in because people were desperate and the Nazi's gave them a scapegoat). Revising history is fun isn't it.
I think you are roaming a little bit away from the point. Why the war started isn't really relevant to the fact that the Polish people would have been exterminated if they hadn't been willing to use violence to resist and the Allies/Soviets hadn't been willing to use violence against their occupiers.
Now violence is not the solution for for almost anything, violence is not the only solution, violence should never be the first solution and should never be relied upon to actually fix a problem.
Where did I say that violence should ever be the first solution?
Your worldview is so simplistic as to be naive. When someone believes they are right about something, regardless of what it is, they adjust their morals to it. I'm not a complete moral relativist, but you can't count every member of a primitive culture that sacrifices virgins to the volcano as "bad people". You can't tell me that every Spartan, who believed in throwing less than perfect children to the wolves, was a sick person. It's completely naive.
What the fuck are you ranting about here? How the hell did you shift gears from "normal human beings don't have the capacity to commit murder" to ancient Sparta? It sounds an awful lot like you are trying to apply modern day standards of morality to an ancient culture in an attempt to nitpick my original point to death. My original point was that most people don't have the capacity to commit murder. Do you disagree with this point? Do you think your neighbor has the capacity to commit murder? Does your boss? How about your mailman? The kid at the grocery store? Please note that I'm talking about murder, not self-defense and certainly not ancient customs from a bygone era with a different morality system.
Again, if it doesn't fit your narrow world view, it can't be true. I've known many police officers, war veterans, family convenience store owners and plain good ol' boys. I disagree with their attitude about guns and shooting people, but I refuse to listen to someone say that they are bad people. And this isn't to say that some of them did not express regret or at least some sort of trauma from the first (or only) time they did it, but it ain't the rule.
Every war veteran I've ever met has nightmares about the things they had to do. I've never met a police officer who had to shoot someone but I did talk to one who came real close once and was told that he spent the next few hours puking his guts out over it. So no, I still don't buy it when you say that they've shot people and not felt some sort of trauma or regret over it. Why do you think that police agencies keep grief counselors/therapists on call to talk to officers who have been involved in a shooting? Perhaps the people you know have learned to mask it and don't want to talk about it?
And people with guns talk about how if they feel threatened they'll shoot first and ask questions later.
Those people will wind up going to jail, unless they can convince a jury that a reasonable person would have felt their life was in imminent danger. I have no problem with this and would in fact vote for conviction if I was on the jury.
when fear hits and it's fight or flight, morals are the last things on one's mind.
If the fear hits the point that you are in fight or flight then the fear is probably well justified. I've only been in fight or flight once in my entire lifetime and it was over some crazy nutjob who was going to beat the shit out of me because it was "my fault" that he rear-ended me at a stop sign. I opted for flight and got the hell out of there. I have no problem with "duty to retreat" laws, provided that they are reasonably worded and only impose the duty to retreat if you can do so in a safe manner at no risk to yourself.
Why anybody would want to shoot someone when they have a clear path of escape is beyond me. As I've said numerous times I don't want to have to live with the knowledge that I've ended a human life. It should be an absolute last resort reserved for situations when it's the only way to save your life or the life of another.
The problem is that "I thought it was an intruder" is a perfectly acceptable reason. As is "I thought he was following me."
No, actually "I thought he was following me" is not a justification for shooting someone. If you tried that you'd have a very good chance of winding up in pound-me-in-the-ass prison. I'd certainly vote to convict your ass if I
*shrug*, the liberals opened the door. They don't get to have it both ways -- using the Federal Government on one hand to correct the states when they don't respect certain civil rights, then on the other hand arguing that guns are a "local" issue. That argument might have some more heft if the people making it weren't the same people that cheer when the ACLU goes into a Southern community and files suit over a nativity scene in the public square or a 10 commandments monument in the local court house.
I would agree with you though that selective incorporation is bullshit. A plain reading of the 14th amendment suggests that every amendment should be held to apply to the states. That wouldn't just include guns either -- there are several states that have abolished the grand jury system and which would have to reinstate it if that part of the 5th amendment was enforced against them.
Make the gun exam hard. Make it so difficult only a few people in a thousand can pass. And make it so that only those people would be allowed to carry guns, law enforcement, military, or otherwise.
Hmm, let's see here. You believe in the amendment that says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed yet you want to set up a system that would only allow 1% or 2% of the population to exercise that right? I hope you can see how those two statements are at odds with one another.
BTW, if you made the test that hard the vast majority of law enforcement would flunk it.......
Why don't cops start shooting at fleeing suspects 99% of the time? Because they're more likely to hit everything else BUT the suspect.
Actually it's because the same rules apply to them as apply to the rest of us. You aren't allowed to use deadly force unless it's necessary to save your life or the life of another. A fleeing criminal is obviously not moments away from the murdering the officer, so shooting him wouldn't be justifiable.
The problem is there are over 300 Million people in the U.S. (If that's where you are from). Give guns to most people and that small percentage of people that WOULD let things get out of control WILL NOW have an easy time taking it to that level.
Who said anything about giving guns to most people? While I tend to think every free citizen should exercise his or her right to keep and bear arms I don't think I've ever suggested that we buy guns for everybody and force them to carry them. All I'm advocating for is a nationwide "shall issue" permit system. If there are no disqualifying events in your past (dishonorable discharge, felony conviction, involuntary hospitalization for mental illness, etc) then the authorities should have to issue you a concealed carry permit if you apply for one.
There are 38 states which have adopted such a system and not one of them has a had a problem with people letting things spiral out of control. There haven't been gunfights over parking spaces and places in the grocery checkout line. This is something that you would dispute or do you agree with the point I'm trying to make?
You don't think the percentage of shootings would be higher?
No, I don't. Ever heard the expression "An armed society is a polite society?" Ever talked to anyone with a carry permit or had one yourself? Every single person I've ever talked to said that it made them less likely to get into arguments and fights. Are there a few nutjobs out there that would seek out the confrontation in order to prove something? Probably. But we shouldn't set public policy based on the actions of an idiotic minority. If we did then we'd all have ignition interlock systems in our cars and nobody would be allowed to have a credit card or cell phone.
If you want to fight for less gun laws, you shouldn't just completely ignore or refute the point I'm making, but find a way to reduce the number of shootings/killings that occur.
The way you reduce the number of shootings and killings is by removing from society the people whom have demonstrated a willingness to commit violence against their fellow human beings. The vast majority of murderers didn't just wake up one day and decide that today would be the day they killed someone. Most criminals have to work their way up to it.
I would make the argument that if you commit a property crime or something similar that doesn't involve violence then we should make every effort possible to rehabilitate you. Once you commit a crime of violence against a fellow human being then we owe you nothing more than an 8'x10' cell, since you've clearly demonstrated that you aren't fit to live among the rest of us.
I would also look at addressing some of the root causes of crime (poverty) so that we could keep people from turning to the life of crime in the first place. The time to save people is before they start doing violence against their fellow man.
You're calling a lot of people with no criminal histories in Texas sick individuals.
We sure love to paint with a broad brush, don't we?
I'm not sure how many Texans (or even sometimes Southerners in general), but there are a lot of people who talk like they're itching for it.
There's talk and there's doing. As I said most of those people are armchair internet warriors. Most human beings have a moral compass that will not allow them to commit murder. I don't know why you insist on denying this fact.
but I don't buy it because I've known those who have shot someone and there was no remorse at all.
Those as in plural? You've known multiple people who have shot someone and felt no remorse at all? Sorry, but I'm gonna call bullshit on that one. If you are actually telling the truth then I'd suggest that you find a new group of people to associate with because the people you are associating with now are a bunch of sick motherfuckers.
Not, as you suggest, because they are bad people, but because that's our culture
Our culture does not celebrate killing people for no reason while feeling no remorse over it. If you think it does then you've been watching too many bad movies and playing too much counterstrike. If you actually knew anybody who was ever forced to take a human life you would not be spouting this nonsense.
I think we are done here. You have a good evening now.
I'd rather someone attack me with a knife or baseball bat than a gun.
If you think that outlawing guns would prevent criminals from obtaining them you haven't studied black market theory or American history very well.
At the same time, a gun makes it less personal and effortless. You don't have to get close to someone, you don't have to look someone in the eyes, and you don't have to watch them die.
This is an absurd statement. Normal people do not have the capacity to commit murder. This fact doesn't change just because they own a firearm. A regular human being is not capable of pointing a firearm at another human being (no mater how close or far away they are) and pulling the trigger. It takes a particularly sick sort of individual to be able to do that and I'm not convinced that such an individual would be deterred from using violence to achieve his means just because he can't get his hands on a gun. Which of course he would be able to anyway, regardless of how much gun control you manage to pass.
Frankly, I worry about law abiding citizens who feel entitled to shoot anyone for the slightest instance of paranoia as much as I do the criminals.
How many people do you really know that feel "entitled" to shoot somewhere? I don't want to shoot anybody. I've seen first hand what taking a human life does to you. Someone I know was placed in a "kill or be killed" situation and had to defend herself with deadly force. It took her more than five years to get over the fact that she had taken a human life -- even though she knows in her gut that it was her or him. She still has nightmares about it.
No sane individual wants to take a human life. Those who claim otherwise are either armchair internet warriors running their mouths to annoy people or mentally unbalanced. The only thing I'll say is that the choice between being dead yourself or having to live with yourself after taking a human life is not a hard one for most people to make.
If you can learn how to defend yourself without a gun, why carry one?
Because the gun is another tool that I have at my disposal should I ever find myself in a situation where my back is against the wall and retreat is not an option. The choice between killing or being killed is not a hard one to make.
I don't think the average mall walker has the dexterity to reach into their pocket quickly, let alone disarm and detain a mugger.
Why the hell would you 'detain' a mugger? That's the job for the police. My job as a civilian is to keep myself and my loved ones alive. Personally I wouldn't get anywhere near someone that threatened me to the point that I felt it necessary to pull out a gun. They can run away for all I care -- I'm not going to stop them.
Ahh, so you agree that it is unlikely that you'd have a chance to actually pull a gun unless you saw things coming in advance. Which also means a lot of very jumpy people pulling loaded weapons when they see a "shady character" coming towards them. That would certainly make our streets safer.
There you go again -- basing your arguments on Hollywood stereotypes. Nobody is going to pull out a gun over a shady character approaching them. That's illegal in every jurisdiction that I'm aware of. Hell, even the police don't get to do that. If I saw a shady character waiting somewhere that I had to pass by I would find another route (i.e: cross the street, go into a store, etc.). If one started to approach me I would yell at him to stop and not come any closer. Hopefully he stops -- but if he doesn't I've drawn attention to myself (hint: bad guys hate attention) and established that I'm not the aggressor in the situation.
Why is wielding a tool (in public) designed explicitly for violence any different?
Because we have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I'm sorry if you find that fact to be inconvenient.
Should a convicted felon be allowed to carry a gun in prison? Should a child be allowed to carry a gun? Should a person be allowed to carry a gun into a courtroom?
Nice strawmen you've got there:)
You made my point for me. Plaxico Burress was an idiot for doing what he did, and if everyone is allowed to carry a loaded gun, there will be millions of morons carrying their weapons in their waste-band while drunk.
And if they get caught doing that then they will lose their concealed carry permits and/or be criminally charged. We don't keep people from getting drivers licenses because of drunks. We punish the drunks.
The intended purpose of a concealed handgun is to hurt people, whether the intent of the person wielding it is to defend themselves or not.
That's exactly what the intended purpose is. Why does that bother you so much? The concealed carry holder is not the one that decided somebody was going to get hurt. The person who decided that somebody was going to get hurt is the criminal thug that sought to use violence to achieve his means. All the concealed carry holder did was ensure that he had a fighting chance at that somebody being the bad guy instead of him.
I have no problem with you shooting deer or a target (or even an intruder in your home), but I do have a problem with you carrying a gun in public with the sole intent of harming another human being when you see fit.
(emphasis mine) I'm sorry but it's clear to me that you've not brought an open mind to this discussion. You are repeating stereotypes that are not grounded in reality. The concealed carry holder is not carrying a gun so that he can harm somebody "when he sees fit". He's carrying it so he can defend himself when some criminal thug sees fit to do him harm. It's a felony in my state to so much as draw your gun unless your life or th
Your comparisons are not accurate. How many times do the police shoot someone because they mistakenly think a person is about to shoot them?
Wait just a minute.... you are accusing me of inaccurate comparisons and then pull out the police as an example? The mindset and job of a police officer is completely different from the mindset and job of a civilian concealed carry holder. The police officer's job requires him to go into harms way. Retreat generally isn't an option for him. The civilians job is to stay alive and out of trouble -- not to arrest scumbags -- retreat is generally going to be his first option.
so how do you think an angry person is going to react when the person they are arguing with starts to pull out their gun?
Did you ignore everything that I said about normal human beings not escalating petty arguments into life and death situations? Your logic is faulty -- it's based on the same arguments that the anti-gun crowd used in every single state that passed a concealed carry law. There's 38 states with "shall issue" laws (i.e: they HAVE to give you the permit unless there is some disqualifying factor, like a criminal conviction) and none of the predictions of arguments escalating into gunfights have been borne out in reality.
Your entire argument is an appeal to fear and unless you are willing to at least acknowledge the fact that most people have the self control not to pull out a gun and start shooting over the day to day annoyances of life then I don't think it's very likely that this is going to be a productive dialog.
Slashdot Mirror
Africa is a shit-hole because it is infested with niggers.
Who is the fucking jackass that modded this 'insightful'?
You should learn about the costs of employment verses the average salary. They are not the same and yes, there is a hell of a lot more costs to employment then healthcare. There are pension programs, employment taxes, FICA contributions, unemployment insurance and tons of other costs.
Now I'm going to ask you to use your fucking brain for at least once in your life. Learn about employment costs.
When I worked in the insurance industry we used to have a spreadsheet template that we would take to benefit fairs/employee meetings. We would punch in the employees annual salary and family situation (single/married/kids) and it would spit out the actual amount of money that the employer was paying out. This would include the salary itself, the employer portion of FICA, health insurance, disability insurance, unemployment insurance, employer contributions to 401(k)s and 403(b)s, employer matching on annuities/other investments, etc, etc, etc.
Imagine the surprise on the employees face when he learned that for every $1 he is paid in salary he actually costs the company anywhere from $1.40 to $1.60 depending on his benefits package, number of dependents, etc. Once they saw that figure it was usually enough to end the grumbling about not being paid enough.
Health insurance was the largest single post-salary expense for the employer but it was almost always less than 50% of the total. The only time I saw it exceed 50% was for expensive groups (i.e: lots of employees with health issues) and even at that it only exceeded 50% for those with families. Given this I'm somewhat skeptical that moving the burden of paying for health care to the government instead of the employers is going to make that much of a difference for the competitiveness of American industry in the global economy. Particularly when one of the ideas the Democrats are floating for financing health care "reform" is yet another tax on employers.
I'm thinking that the grandparent needs someone to come into his office and patiently explain to him that health care costs and salary are not the only items that his employer is paying to keep him on the books. He might be in for a surprise.
He might also want to look at what the real long term problem with health care is -- rising costs -- and ask himself why the current bills that the Democrats are talking about don't do a damn thing to address that problem. I'm not a particularly big fan of the idea of the government taking over even a part of the health care system but you might convince me to get behind it if the package is also going to address health care inflation. If it doesn't address that then it's not worth doing. Putting millions of more people into an entitlement program that's going to face 8%-10% annual increases in cost is simply not sustainable over the long run.
Ford's failure to declare bankruptcy put it a disadvantage - GM reduced debt costs and other costs via the courts; giving it a decided financial advantage.
GM also has 535 members of Congress and the White House auto task force dictating to it how it needs to run it's business. Have you seen all of the Congress-critters whining about how many dealerships they are planning to shutter? What happens when some jackass politician intervenes and threatens to cut off their access to the Government gravy train unless they keep more dealerships in his district open?
Ford gets to make it's decisions free of political considerations. In the long run that will more than offset whatever "advantage" GM is getting by taking government money and going through bankruptcy. Ford got to use the threat of bankruptcy to win virtually the same concessions from labor that GM did. That solves the biggest long term problem that they had. Reducing their debt load would be nice but probably not worth the cost of going through bankruptcy and losing control of the company.
A better example might be a comparison between GMAC and Ford Credit. GMAC is getting access to capital at below market rates. This may translate into the ability to offer cheaper financing than Ford Credit. Whether or not this is an issue for Ford itself remains to be seen. There are generally enough sources of cheap credit out there that people should still be able to finance purchases of Fords. It's probably better for Ford that they finance it through someone else if said financing winds up at a below market rate. Ford still gets to sell the car and they don't have to carry a 0% loan on the books for 36-48 months.
What does matter is the aggregate fuel economy improvement
I'd be willing to wager that a fair amount of the carbon that is "saved" by higher gas mileage is offset by the fact that we are building cars to replace ones that weren't worn out yet. The CARS program requires that the traded in car be taken out of service and destroyed. Unless that car was already on it's last legs (which according to the dealers I've talked to is not the case with most of the traded in cars) then we've replaced it earlier than it would have been otherwise. Building new cars generates carbon. Probably a lot more than a mere 2mpg improvement (the lowest amount to qualify for CARS IIRC) saves.
and the economic stimulus multiplier factor (which is also not in dispute). By the measurements that matter, the program has been a surprising success.
The economic stimulus factor is the only argument that you can make for it. It's too bad that the rest of the "stimulus" money the Democrats allocated wasn't as timely and targeted as this. I'm sure those new roads and pork barrel projects that aren't going to be built for 12-18 months will really help with the current recession......
it's all handled through a trusted party.
I thought you said you were buying them from amazon? I'm confused ;)
Slashdot Rule #36: TFA is only important when the link is not posted to TFA.
Slashdot Rule #37: ???
Slashdot Rule #38: Profit!
Did they listen? No!
Not true. I heard they tried to buy the proper cable but attempted to pay with $2 bills and were promptly arrested ;)
I hear that Obama-care also has a feature for euthanasia of old people.
Fixed that for you ;)
Sincerely yours, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh.
(One wonders if people will pick up on the sarcasm in my post or if the democratic partisan lynch mob will mod me down to -1 and show up at my doorstep with torches and pitchforks)
Both are annoying but one is a lesser evil
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
As I said, I don't know enough about the history of the region to form a conclusion on who is "right" and "wrong". There's been so much propaganda on both sides that it's hard to know what to believe. I do know that South Ossetia was "given" to the Georgians as a "gift" by Stalin, so it's not at all surprising that the people there might not want to be ruled by Tbilisi. On the other hand I get pretty concerned when states intervene in the internal affairs of another and redraw it's borders at gunpoint. The noises that were coming out of Moscow about reuniting the Russian speaking peoples of other areas (the Crimea) with the Russian Federation are also disturbing. We've seen that before and the results aren't pretty.
Either way though I was mainly pointing out the fact that the GP wasn't telling the whole story.
My thesis is that gun laws are there not to punish people who want to own a gun (as most seem to claim) but rather to help stifle conflicts before irrevocable damage/harm happens.
Your thesis is wrong because I've never heard of a gun control law being sold to the public under that theory. They are sold to the public as a solution to crime.
But, if after an enraged argument with your wife, you decide murder is more convenient than divorce, you're not going to go to the garage and drive the car upstairs to the bedroom to run her over.
If you decide that murder is easier than divorce then I suspect that you are so badly fucked up in the head that not having access to a firearm isn't going to be a real deterrent. "Shit, I wanted to kill this bitch but I don't have a gun so I guess I'll get a lawyer and file for divorce instead"
Well, technically they went in after repeatedly telling the Georgians to stop fucking with the south ossetians.
If that's your attitude then I certainly hope that you are in favor of the Taiwanese, Basque, and Tamil Tigers having their independence. South Ossetia was part of Georgia before the Russians went in there and took it away from them. You may regard what they did as justifiable (I honestly don't know enough to form a conclusion one way or another) but it seems dishonest to say that the Georgians were "fucking with" them without also noting that South Ossetia was a part of Georgia.
Why is it that so many people ignore the fact that it is very rare for the average citizen to even have the need to defend themselves let alone be in the position to shoot someone assualting them. Most of this gun hype is from paranoid cowards. You know what would make me worried? Having to go around wondering if you had a concealed gun, not wether I may be involved in a random criminal assault.
I like how you say that it's 'paranoid' to worry about being a victim in the first sentence then in the second say that you'd be worried about law-abiding people carrying guns. Sounds like you are the one with the paranoia problem.
Too many people will use a weapon when scared or enraged just becuase the weapon is at hand
Stop repeating the talking points of the Brady campaign and learn a little bit about the subject at hand. That's the same argument that's been used to lobby against concealed carry in every single state that has passed it. Guess what? None of the predictions of blood in the streets have come true.
Most police do not like concealed weapons either.
I question that claim because most of the firearms/concealed carry training classes I've attended are run by police officers. Most of the police officers around here support gun rights. It's generally only in the large urban areas that they have a problem with citizens exercising their right to keep and bear arms. In any event, who cares what the police think? The police don't like the requirements of the 4th amendment either. Gonna ditch that one too?
And how does your purposed system of bullet tagging handle the fact that the vast majority of guns used to commit crimes are stolen? Here's what will happen:
1) Cops find dead body at crime scene. Coroner is called and transports body back to the morgue.
2) Medical examiner digs spent bullet(s) out of the victim and sends them to the police lab.
3) Police identify the bullets as having come from a gun owned by 'John Q. Citizen'. A check of the firearms database reveals that Mr. Citizen reported this gun stolen some time ago.
4) Police interview Mr. Citizen to see if he can offer them any leads into who stole his gun. He can't, because if he could have he would have given them when the gun was originally stolen and it would have been recovered by now.
5) Dead end. Case goes into the unsolved crimes pile or is solved through some other means than ballistics.
Yes it is. A bullet will stop everyone with a few rare exceptions under extreme conditions
I'm sorry but you just don't know as much about guns and terminal ballistics as you think you do. Stopping power is a complex subject that can't be boiled down to statements like that. I hope you see the irony in accusing me of making "black and white" statements while doing the same thing yourself.
Guns are not nearly as lethal as you seem to think they are. The vast majority of people shot with a handgun actually live to talk about it. Upwards of 80% depending on which study you are reading. As I said earlier, there are really only two ways for a bullet to stop someone. It can disable or destroy the nervous system or it can create a wound which causes them to lose so much blood that they can't continue to function. This may take mere seconds (the bullet severs a major artery or destroys the heart and/or lungs) or several hours (the bullet fails to sever any major blood vessels or damage any of the internal organs) depending on what the bullet hit before it came to a rest or passed through the target.
There are numerous documented instances of bullets failing to stop people. The example that I linked to earlier is just one of the more famous ones. There are many others. Why do you think cops are trained to keep shooting a suspect until he goes down if a single bullet is enough to do the job? Why do you think that someone stabbed with a knife can continue to function until they bleed out but someone shot will be unable to do the same?
There are many but I'll stop at licensing.
Licensing may fly in your country but it will never be accepted here in the states. There are too many examples from history of gun license/registry databases eventually being used to confiscate firearms that are later deemed illegal.
Licensing gun users gives the same assurances that licensing car users does.
The only assurance a license gives you is that the person was able to drive well enough for the time it takes to pass a driving test. I see lots of people on the roadways that probably have no business having drivers licenses.
This will cut down on accidents more then crimes but gun accidents are the big killers and the easiest to avoid
Gun accidents are not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. I worry more about getting behind the wheel of my car than I do about dying in a gun accident. Hell, more people died last year in the US from drowning than died in gun accidents. Perhaps we need mandatory swimming lessons for all citizens and licensing before you can engage in the water sports?
I'd also suggest mandating by law correct storage of firearms (unloaded in a locked cabinet bolted to the foundations)
How do you intend to enforce such a law? Mandatory inspections of the homes of those who own guns? That doesn't seem to be keeping in spirit with our right against unreasonable searches and seizures. I don't think I should have to give up that right just to own a firearm.
Furthermore, "correct storage" is completely dependent upon the intended purpose of the gun (a home defense gun that's stored unloaded and in a safe that can't be opened quickly isn't much use to you) and the living arrangements of the gun owner. I live alone and don't have kids. My storage requirements are very different from those of someone who has kids or frequent visitors to his residence.
walk into the stalls and the nice attendant will hand me a .45 and a clip
You mean he hands you a magazine, right? ;) Good for you for shooting the .45 though. May I ask what kind you like to shoot? I'm rather partial to the 1911 myself.
Unlike most US gun users I'll
Yes it is. A gun does not require you to get within close range. It does not require you to give tour target ample opportunity to detect your approach and above all else a gun does not give your target an opportunity to run or fight back
I was referring to the physiological inhibition that most people have against murder, not the ease with which a murder can be carried out if you lack that inhibition.
from a single knife wound you have to wait for a person to die of blood loss all the time the person will be capable of moving and in most cases fighting back. With a gun shot wound this will put someone down if they are hit anywhere in the chest, shoulder or leg
Here's a clue. You don't have to be that accurate. You just have to hit someone and they go down, anywhere, even a ricochet.
I'm sorry but that just isn't the case. Bullets are not magical talismans. The only two surefire ways to stop a human being (or any animal for that matter, ever been hunting?) are to destroy the nervous system with a head or spinal shot or to lower the blood pressure to the point that they pass out. Some people will go down for other reasons (pain, shock, fear, etc) but others will keep fighting even after being mortally wounded.
I have nothing against gun ownership, just unrestricted gun ownership
Gun ownership is not "unrestricted" in this country. You can't (legally) own a gun if you were dishonorably discharged from the military, convicted of a felony or domestic violence, involuntarily committed/hospitalized, the user of illegal drugs/controlled substances, etc, etc. What new restrictions do you think need to be added and why?
This is incredibly naieve of you. Without the Allies placing such enormous war repayments on Germany would economy have been wrecked and then how could the Nazi party have risen to power (they did get voted in, voted in because people were desperate and the Nazi's gave them a scapegoat). Revising history is fun isn't it.
I think you are roaming a little bit away from the point. Why the war started isn't really relevant to the fact that the Polish people would have been exterminated if they hadn't been willing to use violence to resist and the Allies/Soviets hadn't been willing to use violence against their occupiers.
Now violence is not the solution for for almost anything, violence is not the only solution, violence should never be the first solution and should never be relied upon to actually fix a problem.
Where did I say that violence should ever be the first solution?
Your worldview is so simplistic as to be naive. When someone believes they are right about something, regardless of what it is, they adjust their morals to it. I'm not a complete moral relativist, but you can't count every member of a primitive culture that sacrifices virgins to the volcano as "bad people". You can't tell me that every Spartan, who believed in throwing less than perfect children to the wolves, was a sick person. It's completely naive.
What the fuck are you ranting about here? How the hell did you shift gears from "normal human beings don't have the capacity to commit murder" to ancient Sparta? It sounds an awful lot like you are trying to apply modern day standards of morality to an ancient culture in an attempt to nitpick my original point to death. My original point was that most people don't have the capacity to commit murder. Do you disagree with this point? Do you think your neighbor has the capacity to commit murder? Does your boss? How about your mailman? The kid at the grocery store? Please note that I'm talking about murder, not self-defense and certainly not ancient customs from a bygone era with a different morality system.
Again, if it doesn't fit your narrow world view, it can't be true. I've known many police officers, war veterans, family convenience store owners and plain good ol' boys. I disagree with their attitude about guns and shooting people, but I refuse to listen to someone say that they are bad people. And this isn't to say that some of them did not express regret or at least some sort of trauma from the first (or only) time they did it, but it ain't the rule.
Every war veteran I've ever met has nightmares about the things they had to do. I've never met a police officer who had to shoot someone but I did talk to one who came real close once and was told that he spent the next few hours puking his guts out over it. So no, I still don't buy it when you say that they've shot people and not felt some sort of trauma or regret over it. Why do you think that police agencies keep grief counselors/therapists on call to talk to officers who have been involved in a shooting? Perhaps the people you know have learned to mask it and don't want to talk about it?
And people with guns talk about how if they feel threatened they'll shoot first and ask questions later.
Those people will wind up going to jail, unless they can convince a jury that a reasonable person would have felt their life was in imminent danger. I have no problem with this and would in fact vote for conviction if I was on the jury.
when fear hits and it's fight or flight, morals are the last things on one's mind.
If the fear hits the point that you are in fight or flight then the fear is probably well justified. I've only been in fight or flight once in my entire lifetime and it was over some crazy nutjob who was going to beat the shit out of me because it was "my fault" that he rear-ended me at a stop sign. I opted for flight and got the hell out of there. I have no problem with "duty to retreat" laws, provided that they are reasonably worded and only impose the duty to retreat if you can do so in a safe manner at no risk to yourself.
Why anybody would want to shoot someone when they have a clear path of escape is beyond me. As I've said numerous times I don't want to have to live with the knowledge that I've ended a human life. It should be an absolute last resort reserved for situations when it's the only way to save your life or the life of another.
The problem is that "I thought it was an intruder" is a perfectly acceptable reason. As is "I thought he was following me."
No, actually "I thought he was following me" is not a justification for shooting someone. If you tried that you'd have a very good chance of winding up in pound-me-in-the-ass prison. I'd certainly vote to convict your ass if I
*shrug*, the liberals opened the door. They don't get to have it both ways -- using the Federal Government on one hand to correct the states when they don't respect certain civil rights, then on the other hand arguing that guns are a "local" issue. That argument might have some more heft if the people making it weren't the same people that cheer when the ACLU goes into a Southern community and files suit over a nativity scene in the public square or a 10 commandments monument in the local court house.
I would agree with you though that selective incorporation is bullshit. A plain reading of the 14th amendment suggests that every amendment should be held to apply to the states. That wouldn't just include guns either -- there are several states that have abolished the grand jury system and which would have to reinstate it if that part of the 5th amendment was enforced against them.
I believe in the 2nd amendment
Make the gun exam hard. Make it so difficult only a few people in a thousand can pass. And make it so that only those people would be allowed to carry guns, law enforcement, military, or otherwise.
Hmm, let's see here. You believe in the amendment that says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed yet you want to set up a system that would only allow 1% or 2% of the population to exercise that right? I hope you can see how those two statements are at odds with one another.
BTW, if you made the test that hard the vast majority of law enforcement would flunk it.......
Why don't cops start shooting at fleeing suspects 99% of the time? Because they're more likely to hit everything else BUT the suspect.
Actually it's because the same rules apply to them as apply to the rest of us. You aren't allowed to use deadly force unless it's necessary to save your life or the life of another. A fleeing criminal is obviously not moments away from the murdering the officer, so shooting him wouldn't be justifiable.
The problem is there are over 300 Million people in the U.S. (If that's where you are from). Give guns to most people and that small percentage of people that WOULD let things get out of control WILL NOW have an easy time taking it to that level.
Who said anything about giving guns to most people? While I tend to think every free citizen should exercise his or her right to keep and bear arms I don't think I've ever suggested that we buy guns for everybody and force them to carry them. All I'm advocating for is a nationwide "shall issue" permit system. If there are no disqualifying events in your past (dishonorable discharge, felony conviction, involuntary hospitalization for mental illness, etc) then the authorities should have to issue you a concealed carry permit if you apply for one.
There are 38 states which have adopted such a system and not one of them has a had a problem with people letting things spiral out of control. There haven't been gunfights over parking spaces and places in the grocery checkout line. This is something that you would dispute or do you agree with the point I'm trying to make?
You don't think the percentage of shootings would be higher?
No, I don't. Ever heard the expression "An armed society is a polite society?" Ever talked to anyone with a carry permit or had one yourself? Every single person I've ever talked to said that it made them less likely to get into arguments and fights. Are there a few nutjobs out there that would seek out the confrontation in order to prove something? Probably. But we shouldn't set public policy based on the actions of an idiotic minority. If we did then we'd all have ignition interlock systems in our cars and nobody would be allowed to have a credit card or cell phone.
If you want to fight for less gun laws, you shouldn't just completely ignore or refute the point I'm making, but find a way to reduce the number of shootings/killings that occur.
The way you reduce the number of shootings and killings is by removing from society the people whom have demonstrated a willingness to commit violence against their fellow human beings. The vast majority of murderers didn't just wake up one day and decide that today would be the day they killed someone. Most criminals have to work their way up to it.
I would make the argument that if you commit a property crime or something similar that doesn't involve violence then we should make every effort possible to rehabilitate you. Once you commit a crime of violence against a fellow human being then we owe you nothing more than an 8'x10' cell, since you've clearly demonstrated that you aren't fit to live among the rest of us.
I would also look at addressing some of the root causes of crime (poverty) so that we could keep people from turning to the life of crime in the first place. The time to save people is before they start doing violence against their fellow man.
You're calling a lot of people with no criminal histories in Texas sick individuals.
We sure love to paint with a broad brush, don't we?
I'm not sure how many Texans (or even sometimes Southerners in general), but there are a lot of people who talk like they're itching for it.
There's talk and there's doing. As I said most of those people are armchair internet warriors. Most human beings have a moral compass that will not allow them to commit murder. I don't know why you insist on denying this fact.
but I don't buy it because I've known those who have shot someone and there was no remorse at all.
Those as in plural? You've known multiple people who have shot someone and felt no remorse at all? Sorry, but I'm gonna call bullshit on that one. If you are actually telling the truth then I'd suggest that you find a new group of people to associate with because the people you are associating with now are a bunch of sick motherfuckers.
Not, as you suggest, because they are bad people, but because that's our culture
Our culture does not celebrate killing people for no reason while feeling no remorse over it. If you think it does then you've been watching too many bad movies and playing too much counterstrike. If you actually knew anybody who was ever forced to take a human life you would not be spouting this nonsense.
I think we are done here. You have a good evening now.
I'd rather someone attack me with a knife or baseball bat than a gun.
If you think that outlawing guns would prevent criminals from obtaining them you haven't studied black market theory or American history very well.
At the same time, a gun makes it less personal and effortless. You don't have to get close to someone, you don't have to look someone in the eyes, and you don't have to watch them die.
This is an absurd statement. Normal people do not have the capacity to commit murder. This fact doesn't change just because they own a firearm. A regular human being is not capable of pointing a firearm at another human being (no mater how close or far away they are) and pulling the trigger. It takes a particularly sick sort of individual to be able to do that and I'm not convinced that such an individual would be deterred from using violence to achieve his means just because he can't get his hands on a gun. Which of course he would be able to anyway, regardless of how much gun control you manage to pass.
Frankly, I worry about law abiding citizens who feel entitled to shoot anyone for the slightest instance of paranoia as much as I do the criminals.
How many people do you really know that feel "entitled" to shoot somewhere? I don't want to shoot anybody. I've seen first hand what taking a human life does to you. Someone I know was placed in a "kill or be killed" situation and had to defend herself with deadly force. It took her more than five years to get over the fact that she had taken a human life -- even though she knows in her gut that it was her or him. She still has nightmares about it.
No sane individual wants to take a human life. Those who claim otherwise are either armchair internet warriors running their mouths to annoy people or mentally unbalanced. The only thing I'll say is that the choice between being dead yourself or having to live with yourself after taking a human life is not a hard one for most people to make.
If you can learn how to defend yourself without a gun, why carry one?
Because the gun is another tool that I have at my disposal should I ever find myself in a situation where my back is against the wall and retreat is not an option. The choice between killing or being killed is not a hard one to make.
I don't think the average mall walker has the dexterity to reach into their pocket quickly, let alone disarm and detain a mugger.
Why the hell would you 'detain' a mugger? That's the job for the police. My job as a civilian is to keep myself and my loved ones alive. Personally I wouldn't get anywhere near someone that threatened me to the point that I felt it necessary to pull out a gun. They can run away for all I care -- I'm not going to stop them.
Ahh, so you agree that it is unlikely that you'd have a chance to actually pull a gun unless you saw things coming in advance. Which also means a lot of very jumpy people pulling loaded weapons when they see a "shady character" coming towards them. That would certainly make our streets safer.
There you go again -- basing your arguments on Hollywood stereotypes. Nobody is going to pull out a gun over a shady character approaching them. That's illegal in every jurisdiction that I'm aware of. Hell, even the police don't get to do that. If I saw a shady character waiting somewhere that I had to pass by I would find another route (i.e: cross the street, go into a store, etc.). If one started to approach me I would yell at him to stop and not come any closer. Hopefully he stops -- but if he doesn't I've drawn attention to myself (hint: bad guys hate attention) and established that I'm not the aggressor in the situation.
Why is wielding a tool (in public) designed explicitly for violence any different?
Because we have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I'm sorry if you find that fact to be inconvenient.
Should a convicted felon be allowed to carry a gun in prison? Should a child be allowed to carry a gun? Should a person be allowed to carry a gun into a courtroom?
Nice strawmen you've got there :)
You made my point for me. Plaxico Burress was an idiot for doing what he did, and if everyone is allowed to carry a loaded gun, there will be millions of morons carrying their weapons in their waste-band while drunk.
And if they get caught doing that then they will lose their concealed carry permits and/or be criminally charged. We don't keep people from getting drivers licenses because of drunks. We punish the drunks.
The intended purpose of a concealed handgun is to hurt people, whether the intent of the person wielding it is to defend themselves or not.
That's exactly what the intended purpose is. Why does that bother you so much? The concealed carry holder is not the one that decided somebody was going to get hurt. The person who decided that somebody was going to get hurt is the criminal thug that sought to use violence to achieve his means. All the concealed carry holder did was ensure that he had a fighting chance at that somebody being the bad guy instead of him.
I have no problem with you shooting deer or a target (or even an intruder in your home), but I do have a problem with you carrying a gun in public with the sole intent of harming another human being when you see fit.
(emphasis mine) I'm sorry but it's clear to me that you've not brought an open mind to this discussion. You are repeating stereotypes that are not grounded in reality. The concealed carry holder is not carrying a gun so that he can harm somebody "when he sees fit". He's carrying it so he can defend himself when some criminal thug sees fit to do him harm. It's a felony in my state to so much as draw your gun unless your life or th
Your comparisons are not accurate. How many times do the police shoot someone because they mistakenly think a person is about to shoot them?
Wait just a minute.... you are accusing me of inaccurate comparisons and then pull out the police as an example? The mindset and job of a police officer is completely different from the mindset and job of a civilian concealed carry holder. The police officer's job requires him to go into harms way. Retreat generally isn't an option for him. The civilians job is to stay alive and out of trouble -- not to arrest scumbags -- retreat is generally going to be his first option.
so how do you think an angry person is going to react when the person they are arguing with starts to pull out their gun?
Did you ignore everything that I said about normal human beings not escalating petty arguments into life and death situations? Your logic is faulty -- it's based on the same arguments that the anti-gun crowd used in every single state that passed a concealed carry law. There's 38 states with "shall issue" laws (i.e: they HAVE to give you the permit unless there is some disqualifying factor, like a criminal conviction) and none of the predictions of arguments escalating into gunfights have been borne out in reality.
Your entire argument is an appeal to fear and unless you are willing to at least acknowledge the fact that most people have the self control not to pull out a gun and start shooting over the day to day annoyances of life then I don't think it's very likely that this is going to be a productive dialog.