It's time for another gun threadFollow

Spineless **** comments aside for a moment....


I promise i wont 'insult' your faith. i will question it, for sure tho.

But, if you are unable to define in writing, however briefly, your faith by wich you live your life, that, I will insult. relentlessly. Because its a cowardly cop-out.

Commit! You hypocrite.....

Edited, Apr 7th 2009 10:05pm by paulsol

It's giving when you give away something you own. It's stealing when you give away something that belongs to someone else.

Just curious, but how many people would be out of a job if an outright ban was put into place? I'm not saying people keeping jobs is more important than someone not dying because of a firearm, but I think some people are overlooking a few related issues if something like that were to happen.

Personally, I think the regulation of sales and enforcement of laws needs to be beefed up. I don't think any law-abiding gun-owning citizen would have any problem with that as it would only serve to keep guns out of the wrong hands. A ban would only ***** over a very large percentage of good people that own guns for recreation.

Just curious, but how many people would be out of a job if an outright ban was put into place?

About .0001% of the workforce.

In the same way that the DEA likes drugs to be freely availiable and illegal, thus keeping themselves in a job, medical personel like guns. And cigarettes. It provides plentiful overtime.

Support the economy! Free guns and cigarettes for all!

But you're already forced to pay for things like roads, schools, museums, wars, and hospitals, that aren't necessarily things you yourself would ever use or need. Like, I don't have any kids, but our 1 cent extra local sales tax is going to schools. I don't have a choice; I suppose I could just never buy anything, ever, and say ***** YOU KIDS, but that would be way too much inconvenience. And these things aren't even the basic necessities of life.

I know Republicans are all about less taxes and less government interference, but it's okay to collect money for roads from people who can't afford a car, but not okay to collect money for food for people who can't afford to eat? It's okay to tax American citizens to pay for hospitals in Iraq that were never built, but not okay to tax Americans for equal health access for everyone?





Edited, Apr 7th 2009 10:39pm by catwho

It's not either/or though. There's a happy medium between "no taxes for anything at all!" and "you must be willing to pay any amount for any service anyone might need". Do you see how maybe we can decide that paying for some things are ok, but other things are not?



Yes. And if you polled the population as a whole and asked them if they thought that paying for K-12 education for every citizen was worth the tax dollars (complaints about inefficiency aside, just the concept of doing so), something approaching 99% of the people will agree that it's worth spending that money to have a more educated population.

Ask the same question about free housing for people who cant afford rent, and you wont get quite so much support. That's the point here. It's not about being "mean", it's that at some point it stops being something that most people agree is good for the whole of society and starts becoming something that lazy people will use to get out of having to support themselves.



I'm not sure what your point is. I don't have a problem paying for K-12 education. I'm not even opposed to "some" social spending programs designed to help the most poor in our society. I *am* opposed to the assumption that if I don't agree to any and all expenses for anything someone might need, that I'm a bad person.

I think that when we characterize it that way, we loose sight of the relative cost/gain of each choice. It turns into labeling anyone on a "side" as a bad person.



The person who doesn't own a car still benefits from the existence of roads. Assuming he does have *some* income and livelihood, where do you think the food he eats comes from? The clothes he wears? Did that stuff just magically appear?

It's (oddly enough) about true societal "good". If one person can't afford food, that one person suffers. If there isn't a road, everyone suffers. I'll also point out that the person who can't afford a car likely pays little if nothing for the roads. Most of that is paid out of vehicle registration fees, not income taxes. But it's irrelevant anyway.

It's also about what things "need" to be done by government. If a whole bunch of individuals each decided to build and maintain just their portion of the roads they use, we'd have a pretty chaotic road system, don't you agree? Whereas it's quite efficient for private people and groups to provide food for people who are hungry.

Have you ever met someone who actually couldn't find food to eat here in the US? Ever? I doubt it.



We're not paying the ongoing medical coverage for every Iraqi citizen from now until the end of time. Building the buildings is one thing. Paying for day to day coverage forever is something completely different...


Look. We can sit here and debate each item if you want. I just think that'll take a really really long time. Ultimately, it's about two things:

1. Things that government needs to do and can do better than private entities.

2. Things that the public overwhelmingly agrees (not 51%, but 99%) should be paid for.


That's at least a decent starting criteria, don't you agree? And paying for people who can't afford some service most often does not fall into that net IMO. It's not about being a mean person. I honestly believe that it's not only detrimental to society as a whole doing paying for those sorts of things, but I also believe that the recipients of such care are hurt in the long run by them. Sure, they get some free thing today, but as a group they statistically fail to achieve self-sufficiency at a higher rate as a result.

I own guns. I own 1 Illegal gun under Wisconsin's gun laws (they're fairly lenient). It's a Beretta 93R that I love dearly for being a, pardon the pun, blast to play with. I also own an M82A1, A gun that many would argue should be illegal due to its ability to penetrate extremely tough ballistic glass and vests. I keep every one of the guns I own locked in a case bolted to the floor in the barn. I love my guns and I do everything I can to use them safely, and oppose highly restrictive gun ownership laws.

On the other hand, I greatly oppose the legalization of concealment. Nothing makes me worry more than about people carrying guns. It is a truly pernicious idea that a man carrying a deadly weapon will somehow make his life safer or make what would have been a criminal conflict with another person shift in his favor. Carrying a weapon concealed or otherwise in your day to day activities is nothing short of a dangerous undertaking.

I don't hunt, nor do I condemn anyone that does. Hunting is a fun pass time, regardless if much of it comes from the company of your fellow hunters. I find myself on the fence when it comes to the DNR and its handling of deer in Wisconsin, and often find myself wishing for full time open season on many games, if nothing else than to get them out of my hair. I also know that this would turn into a fiasco, and that control over game is important to prevent over hunting and the killing of threatened animals, and will never shoot an animal out of season.

Gun control isn't bad, but non-enforcement is. Worse still is irresponsibility on the part of gun owners. If you choose to own a gun, do so with reverence, it is a deadly weapon. Furthermore, protect what you own from theft. The criminals that gun control prevents from getting guns legally will happily take guns from you and potentially use them on you or your loved ones.

That thar is my 2 cents.


Edited, Apr 8th 2009 5:44pm by AldousCayo

I apologize, I overlooked the research portion.



In terms of Japans Healthcare system. Hospital's and Insurance Agencies are dominantly privately owned at 80%. 30% of the medical procedures cost are not covered and still needed to be paid out of pocket, payment of which is capped to income. Though, even if you take away the social medical insurance, there is still the low price of medical procedures. With an MRI scan costing 10-20% the amount of a comparable US MRI scan. The primary downside to the Japanese system are that a good number of Hospitals are quite likely to operate in the red. (also, a number of old people tend to overuse the system, eventually I hope something is done about it)

The question I ask to you is, do you think it would it be beneficial to lower the costs of certain procedures to avoid bankruptcy on the patients part. Alternately, what about making certain things illegal to deny someone coverage for?

Edited, Apr 8th 2009 8:01am by Keikomyau

See, I actually posted real numbers. What did you post? Some trumped up ********* to support your ever expanding trip to Bizzaro World.