another school shooting in U.S. of A. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SGWilko

How much does the right to free healthcare cost then?

---

A lot less then the lives of those that could be saved by having free access to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leighton323

Have you ever heard of the word "contextomy"? If not please do look it up. Here is an explanation of the true meaning of the quote.

"He was referring to the Indian Arms Act of 1878 (which was amended several times over the ensuing decades). This Act was, in practice, a total gun ban enacted to protect the British realm from an insurgency. By banning firearm possession for all but those authorized by the Realm they were able to all but do away with both military and private arms as almost no one was ever authorized.Mr. Gandhi, as you correctly state, was a lifelong pacifist. But, he understood that in the extreme a society needs to have the capability to defend itself from invasion and oppressive governance. This is not contradictory. It's merely an acknowledgement of the existence of extremes. I have in person heard the Dalai Lama (another life long pacifist) state the same thing. In short, pacifists are not entirely blind to the possibility of a need to defend oneself from extraordinary violence. However, they do believe that in most cases where one man would choose to take up arms passive resistance would be the superior choice. In India that proved to be true. In the Germany of the 1940's it wasn't. However, one of the first things that Hitler did was ban all the guns.
As far as the "Right to bear arms" crowd is concerned; this quote is far from mis-attributed"

The right to bear arms was in order for the Indian people to protect themselves against an invasion. This included the Indian Military being armed as well, not just the poeple, and it was certainly not against there own domestic people, as currently in america. This cannot be related to America as you already do have a military that is armed. So how in any way, shape or form can you relate this to personal gun ownership in America?

---

Exactly. The Indian Military, the Indian Army, did bear arms and fought long and hard to defend their eastern border from Japanese invasion.
So this ban must have applied only to individuals. A far cry from the US extension of the right of the People to have an armed militia to allowing individuals to have personal arsenals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior

Determining that what other people fear is justified or not seems more of a subjectively arrived at conclusion than an objective one. I'm 6'3" and about 225. My girlfriend is 5'5" and I guess about 120. What might be an unjustified fear for me could be a very justified fear for her - especially in say, a bear attack. See, I can't outrun a bear, but I can outrun her. She's got a lot to worry about, IMO. Sounds like she either needs to buy a gun or find herself a boyfriend who wouldn't sacrifice her to Yogi Bear in his bid for self-preservation. But oddly enough, considering my views and our relationship, she's very anti-gun. Go figure.

---

So it seems that your girlfriend is much more objective about her own fears then you are, most probably because your sentiments for her.
The question is, should we let subjectivity and sentiments rule our lives and the lives of other?
The best way not to have to use a gun against a bear is to avoid the bears cause if you get in a situation where one of them threatens your life then the gun will not save you anymore. Where I grew up the bears were visiting people's yards on a regular basis, yet no one needed a gun. I remember when we used to go for camping in the mountains and every night the bears were roaming through the camp, when the fire was going out, in search for food leftovers, never needed a gun, just kept sleeping and they left in peace every time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior

And yes, I agree that (statistically speaking) the chances of actually needing and using a gun in a violent confrontation are small indeed. As well, statistically speaking, most cops will never even draw their guns, much less ever shoot anyone over the course of their careers. Statistically speaking, most people will never file a fire insurance claim. Looking at stats tells me that if firearms are being bought solely for self-defense, they'll likely never be needed or drawn. Most people who own guns will probably never shoot anything more than a paper target. But I am unable to tell a woman living alone, a cop making a traffic stop or the guy who just put his life savings into building a house that their fears are unjustified just because I have stats that say so. I understand the point you're trying to make though. So with that said, do some people take it too far? Do some people take it to extremes, as if there are bandits behind every tree and boogeymen hiding under their beds? Do some people (like that paranoid schizo, "stand-your-ground", failed wannabe cop in Florida) start more trouble than would ever come their way if they just minded their own business? Absolutely! Some do. How much of the problem are these people... what percentage? How much of the problem are so called, falsely named "assault weapons"? Those people and those weapons tend to be the ones who make the funny papers, but they are statistical outliers. So in addressing the problem, by training, I would look at those items which would yield the biggest positive effect for the least amount of cost/effort. There's nothing so unique about this issue that the same methodology that I use on a daily basis wouldn't work here. And it's a damn sight better than everybody getting all red in the face and just screaming that their way is the only way.

---

Good to see that you know that objectively guns are absolutely not needed for people other then police and army.
IMO you should not feel unable to explain people these things cause otherwise they might never come to understand and deal with their unfounded fears, especially when one sees the amount of brainwashing their are subjected to by organizations like the NRA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior

Without wanting to sound too arrogant (yeah, I'm so perfect that I can't stand myself, Ioan... and you probably can't stand me either! :D ),

---

As long as you find someone who can stand you, you can still be a happy man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior

I do fully believe that if people of my professional ilk were tasked with reducing gun violence by some initial, realistic, prescribed amount, it could be done in a way that very few Americans would object to one bit. At least you'd have something to start with... something meaningful and effective to build on. But that's not what is going to happen. Just like here, there's going to be a lot of hyperbole and emotional silliness (from both sides). And whatever we get will probably be very much like the health care law: some unworkable, clumsily written, piece of ineffective nothing. People will still die and be killed by firearms. They'll seize an AK from some old man and every TV station in town will turn out to take pictures of it. Exactly like our faux war on drugs... all ya gotta do is put dope on the table... bread & circuses keeps the masses happy. :dozey:

---

If you don't try you will never know.
Politicians will always talk a lot and do nothing, so it's up to the people to actually drive the change. What was that saying like? If there's a will there's a way!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

Plenty, when the government taxes it's citizens in order to provide that "free" healthcare to others.

---

We have it around here and no one complains about it. It does cost but then you might one day need that free health care and it's nice to be able to rely on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Actually you do have a right to a Free Market.

---

Bollocks, that is just an illusion you have. There is no such thing as free market, not for the people anyway, it is all controlled by those who have the means.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

That is not the point. I WILLINGLY pay for my health insurance. I decide what my Healthcare will be, Socialized medicine is funded by the Government taking money by force from the productive members of society to buy support from the unproductive.

Classic Curley Effect.

---

There are plenty of things in life that you get for free because your government built them with your tax money. I do not see you complaining that they've built roads for you to drive on. Can you imagine that some people without a job and money are walking on those same roads built from your tax money?! Can you imagine that the police, the army and the firefighters are also protecting those people with no means even though they are paid by your tax money?!
Then why would healthcare be an issue? Because it is being put forward by a democratic president?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Actually you do have a right to a Free Market. It is up to you to earn the money to be able to purchase it.

Sad that so many people seem to have an distinct inability to actually know what a right is

---

Even if you assume that health care is not a right (which by the way is not the topic of this thread), it's still less efficient on a per capita basis to provide it on anything less than a single payer system because health care is insurance question and subject to negative self-selection criterria and dy/dx of the cost of insuring insurable items approaches maximum efficiency when the number and type of insurable items approaches the total number of possible number and type of insurable items.
Mr Vop is arguing in favour of a less efficient and therefore a more expensive system on a per capita basis. In other words Mr Vop is in favour of more wastage in a "free market" system (which doesn't actually exist in the real world), than something which is more efficient and costs less on a per capita basis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

:rotflmao:




Sure everyone else is at fault, but not those who want guns everywhere, like if guns can solve a gun problem anyway.
I say you and your like are at fault for all these shootings because you are against the changes which would in the long term put an end to them, and all this just for the pathetic egoistic reason that you want to feel stronger by owning fire arms cause otherwise you are afraid of the world around you.

---

Saying that banning guns would in the long term put an end to shootings is the same as saying that banning free speech would put an end to people feeling bad. A Stupid and dangerous idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

We have it around here and no one complains about it. It does cost but then you might one day need that free health care and it's nice to be able to rely on it.

---

Still doesn't make it a RIGHT. And frankly I am pretty sure that wherever you are I could find many people who don't like it. In fact there is no place on this planet that has better healthcare than the USA. That is until Obamacare kicks in. Then my Health Insurance is going to go up to pay for the slacklers and then be Taxed at 40% (YES 40 F*cking Percent) starting in 2018.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Even if you assume that health care is not a right (which by the way is not the topic of this thread), it's still less efficient on a per capita basis to provide it on anything less than a single payer system because health care is insurance question and subject to negative self-selection criterria and dy/dx of the cost of insuring insurable items approaches maximum efficiency when the number and type of insurable items approaches the total number of possible number and type of insurable items.
Mr Vop is arguing in favour of a less efficient and therefore a more expensive system on a per capita basis. In other words Mr Vop is in favour of more wastage in a "free market" system (which doesn't actually exist in the real world), than something which is more efficient and costs less on a per capita basis.

---

Cost has nothing to do with a right.

In fact as soon as cost in involved it stops being a right. Everybody has a right to the Access of healthcare. The idea that anyone has a right to free anything besides maybe air is a ignorant and dangerous idea.


the idea that the free market systems creates more "wastage" than a government run system pretty much means you have nothing intelligent to add to this conversation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

the idea that the free market systems creates more "wastage" than a government run system pretty much means you have nothing intelligent to add to this conversation.

---

Would you like to provide a link to back up your claim then? Please show workings. I should like to check any figures you wish to present.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

.....and all this just for the pathetic egoistic reason that you want to feel stronger by owning fire arms cause otherwise you are afraid of the world around you.

---

That is an incredibly ignorant assumption.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

There are plenty of things in life that you get for free because your government built them with your tax money. I do not see you complaining that they've built roads for you to drive on. Can you imagine that some people without a job and money are walking on those same roads built from your tax money?! Can you imagine that the police, the army and the firefighters are also protecting those people with no means even though they are paid by your tax money?!
Then why would healthcare be an issue? Because it is being put forward by a democratic president?

---

You just don't understand that "free" and "built with tax money" are mutually exclusive terms do you? Just because the government does something does NOT mean it is free.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Even if you assume that health care is not a right (which by the way is not the topic of this thread), it's still less efficient on a per capita basis to provide it on anything less than a single payer system because health care is insurance question and subject to negative self-selection criterria and dy/dx of the cost of insuring insurable items approaches maximum efficiency when the number and type of insurable items approaches the total number of possible number and type of insurable items.
Mr Vop is arguing in favour of a less efficient and therefore a more expensive system on a per capita basis. In other words Mr Vop is in favour of more wastage in a "free market" system (which doesn't actually exist in the real world), than something which is more efficient and costs less on a per capita basis.

---

You get it. Please explain to ioan the difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Still doesn't make it a RIGHT. And frankly I am pretty sure that wherever you are I could find many people who don't like it. In fact there is no place on this planet that has better healthcare than the USA. That is until Obamacare kicks in. Then my Health Insurance is going to go up to pay for the slacklers and then be Taxed at 40% (YES 40 F*cking Percent) starting in 2018.

---

What is a 'slackler'? This is not a word.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Yes we can. ;)
What bothered me most is how you dismissed this thread when you joined it first, then you left several times as it was 'going nowhere' just to come back and school us again and again.

Anyway, I hope we can put this to rest now.

---

Yes, I most certainly did dismiss it. And if the thread goes back to a thread where people mostly just keep restating their concrete ideologies and trading insults, then I'd rather enjoy my evening doing something else.

I have no issue with joking around a bit to keep things light. But my days of "playing the dozens" (you'll have to look that up) are mostly behind me. I've found that life is too short for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

So it seems that your girlfriend is much more objective about her own fears then you are, most probably because your sentiments for her.
The question is, should we let subjectivity and sentiments rule our lives and the lives of other?

---

Her dislike of guns has nothing to do with her objectivity. It would be hard to pass a girl off as objective when she has more money tied up in her shoe collection than some people have in their 401k retirement plans. She just didn't grow up around guns - though she has fired her fair share of ammo since we've been together. It's pretty basic and simple: just as I don't like to hang out at the mall, she doesn't like guns that much - even though she'll go shooting with us from time to time. So it's not like a religious/ideological thing, it's just a personal preference. It has nothing to do with any sort of deep philosophical or analytic thought.

Quote:

---

The best way not to have to use a gun against a bear is to avoid the bears cause if you get in a situation where one of them threatens your life then the gun will not save you anymore. Where I grew up the bears were visiting people's yards on a regular basis, yet no one needed a gun. I remember when we used to go for camping in the mountains and every night the bears were roaming through the camp, when the fire was going out, in search for food leftovers, never needed a gun, just kept sleeping and they left in peace every time.

---

I guess humor and sarcasm don't always translate well on the internet. Uh, I'm joking about the bear and leaving her (well, unless I really HAD to :vader :) . Grizzlies are a totally different story, but unless it's a mother with a cub, most black bears (what we have in my area) can be frightened off by making loud noises - unless you're hunting bear, then you need to stay quiet (good tasting meat, BTW). Coyotes, they're not so easy to avoid if they're in a pack, as I've found. So I do carry a pistol if I go onto parts of my land where they den later in the evening - especially when I kept livestock that had young ones. Same with snakes and rabid foxes. And we're now getting mountain lions in this area. Depending on the circumstances, they will attack humans... usually from behind. So this is why I'll start having the little miss walk 10 paces behind me from now on. But seriously, do I feel the need to walk around locked & loaded all the time? No. But that's me.

Quote:

---

Good to see that you know that objectively guns are absolutely not needed for people other then police and army.

---

Nice try. But that's not what I said, now is it? ;) But why do the police need guns? Didn't I say that most of them are unlikely to ever fire their guns over the course of their careers? I don't know what the situation is now, but wasn't there a time when cops in Great Britain didn't carry firearms? We'll just ban everyone from possessing firearms and all will be well?

Generally speaking, I don't tell other people what they need, don't need, what is practical for them, what isn't practical for them, what they should have or shouldn't have... and no one tells me either. The herd mentality just aint' for me. Sorry.

Quote:

---

IMO you should not feel unable to explain people these things cause otherwise they might never come to understand and deal with their unfounded fears, especially when one sees the amount of brainwashing their are subjected to by organizations like the NRA.

---

Hmm, well, there's more than enough disinformation, misinformation and brainwashing being provided by organizations other than just the NRA. ;) Many here want to discuss the ideology and culture behind American firearms ownership, with the Sandy Hook tragedy as nothing more than a backdrop. That's unfortunate. But as many times as I've mentioned realistic, practical solutions, I continue to hear crickets chirping. There are a lot of posts here now, so maybe I've missed something, and I apologize if so. But if the anti-gun lobby's only solution is to JUST put some more words (most of which are "ban") on more pieces of paper, I think that has FAIL written all over it. Simple solutions for complex problems seldom succeed. Please, humor me... try: realistic... practical. Let's talk about something real and substantive, instead of the same old same old ideological crap.

Quote:

---

As long as you find someone who can stand you, you can still be a happy man.

---

Yeah, I just buy her an iPad, jewelry and some Gucci shoes every now & again and she (says she) loves me.

Quote:

---

If you don't try you will never know.

---

I just accepted a new job offer, but anytime the government wants to hire me and will meet my price, I'd be happy to try. Have laptop, will travel (to D.C.).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

Cost has nothing to do with a right.

In fact as soon as cost in involved it stops being a right.

---

I have seldom read a more muddled set of arguments than yours on this point, Tony. At once you say that nothing can be a right that costs money, and that 'cost has nothing to do with a right'. This is inherently contradictory, even if one accepts your definition (which I don't). According to your argument, cost certainly has something to do with a right, i.e. you don't feel that something that costs is a right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

The idea that anyone has a right to free anything besides maybe air is a ignorant and dangerous idea.

---

In that case, do you advocate the free provision by the state of guns?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

the idea that the free market systems creates more "wastage" than a government run system pretty much means you have nothing intelligent to add to this conversation.

---

Rubbish. You have, over the years, had pointed out to you on these forums many examples of how the application of free market principles to public services has proved far more expensive than would have been the alternative. You choose to forget or ignore these.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior

Her dislike of guns has nothing to do with her objectivity. It would be hard to pass a girl off as objective when she has more money tied up in her shoe collection than some people have in their 401k retirement plans.

---

In the same vein, do you not find it difficult to trust the opinions of gun enthusiasts who are clearly confused of mind, irrational of thought and incapable of stringing together a coherent sentence in their home country's language? These, more than anything, are the gun enthusiasts that worry me. Certainly — and, again, I say this with no desire to make a cheap point — I would have no problem with you living next door to me with a legal firearm in your possession, despite my view that the general possession of firearms is, in practical terms, utterly unnecessary. The same I would never say of the likes of anthonyvop and Roamy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior

It's pretty basic and simple: just as I don't like to hang out at the mall, she doesn't like guns that much - even though she'll go shooting with us from time to time. So it's not like a religious/ideological thing, it's just a personal preference. It has nothing to do with any sort of deep philosophical or analytic thought.

---

I find the attempt to equate 'liking guns' full stop with liking going shopping a little troubling, I must say. Liking shooting as a sport I can completely, utterly understand. But I would never like guns per se. At guns themselves I draw the line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior

I don't know what the situation is now, but wasn't there a time when cops in Great Britain didn't carry firearms? We'll just ban everyone from possessing firearms and all will be well?

---

Most policemen in Britain remain unarmed. I feel decidedly uneasy when I see an armed policeman — to my mind it's a means of placating a certain section of public opinion in the face of a security threat that is, in percentage terms, unlikely directly to affect the vast majority of people. Certain events of recent years have shown that little trust can be placed in the ability of the police to use their firearms responsibly. Given that, how could I ever think that a 'have-a-go' member of the public, not subjected to extensive training, could be any more responsible with their firearm — especially given that, in the UK, it would be a matter of extreme paranoia to feel that possession of a firearm for protection is necessary or desirable?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior

Let's talk about something real and substantive, instead of the same old same old ideological crap.

---

Into which category falls, to my mind, the very basis of widespread US gun ownership.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior

Hmm, well, there's more than enough disinformation, misinformation and brainwashing being provided by organizations other than just the NRA. ;) Many here want to discuss the ideology and culture behind American firearms ownership, with the Sandy Hook tragedy as nothing more than a backdrop. That's unfortunate. But as many times as I've mentioned realistic, practical solutions, I continue to hear crickets chirping. There are a lot of posts here now, so maybe I've missed something, and I apologize if so. But if the anti-gun lobby's only solution is to JUST put some more words (most of which are "ban") on more pieces of paper, I think that has FAIL written all over it. Simple solutions for complex problems seldom succeed. Please, humor me... try: realistic... practical. Let's talk about something real and substantive, instead of the same old same old ideological crap.

---

Society of itself and corporations generally do not act any different to how they are already doing unless the outcome is either incentivised or a negative outcome is actively legislated against with punitive measures.
I have also asked the question of whether or not society, ideology and culture is shaped by legislation or not and have equally been met with glib responses.

Obviously the eventual outcome is a safer society; this does not happen with a prevalence of increasing numbers of firearms. If you think that placing words on more pieces of paper has fail all over it, yet are not willing to concede that words on a piece of paper created this weird blind devotion to firearms in the first place, then sadly yes, FAIL is written all over it.

I personally think that the time to act has passed. There might have been a solution but there is certainly no will to enact it. There are 51,438 retail gun shops, 129,817 licenced firearm dealers and with the the gun and ammunition manufacturing industry in the United States estimated at around $6.7 billion in combined yearly sales, I wager that it is impossible to put any substantive incentives or punitive measures in place that would make any difference.
Of course you continue to hear crickets chirping... that is the wish and desire of the people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

I have also asked the question of whether or not society, ideology and culture is shaped by legislation or not and have equally been met with glib responses.

---

This is a hard one to answer. Do we believe, for example, that paedophilia would be socially acceptable were it not for legislation? Or, indeed, slavery? I could pick other examples.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

This is a hard one to answer. Do we believe, for example, that paedophilia would be socially acceptable were it not for legislation? Or, indeed, slavery? I could pick other examples.

---

Pedophilia would not be socially acceptable in any society as it harms children and we're all pretty much hard wired to protect them. Not to say that some don't do those things, but the vast majority of people find it repugnant. So legislation follows use and not the other way around in this case.

Slavery is a somewhat different situation. It has always been more of an economic institution than a social one. Mechanized society has eliminated most of the need for slaves. Though there are always some people who will seek to subject others to their will, be it through slavery or other means.

I would argue that meaningful legislation almost always follows use, codifying what is already practiced. When legislation tries to force use, outside of current behavior, it nearly always fails. Small impact examples are speed limits and large ones are alcohol and drug prohibitions. A significant proportion of the population must agree with the legislation for it to succeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Bollocks, that is just an illusion you have. There is no such thing as free market, not for the people anyway, it is all controlled by those who have the means.

---

Wow......You have no grasp of what the free market is do you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

There are plenty of things in life that you get for free because your government built them with your tax money. I do not see you complaining that they've built roads for you to drive on. Can you imagine that some people without a job and money are walking on those same roads built from your tax money?! Can you imagine that the police, the army and the firefighters are also protecting those people with no means even though they are paid by your tax money?!
Then why would healthcare be an issue? Because it is being put forward by a democratic president?

---

I am not stupid enough to think that Roads, Police or Fire Departments are free. Only a fool or the unproductive think it is free,

Quickly closing in on 900 posts, yet I fail to see any reasonable solutions that as Jag has asked, are both realistic and practical.

I have seen quite a few insane sterotypes, many thinly veiled ad hominem attacks, a great deal of thread drift into other subjects (often fueled by those sterotypes and personal differences) and a whole lot of finger pointing and chest puffing seeming to indicate those people won't budge in their opinions and are certain in their own mind they are right.

Much like Jag, I knew this thread would be an insult fest and go in circles. Unlike Jag, I'm not going to take the time to try to stop it or promote real discussion or dialogue, even though I know he had the right idea in doing so.

But at the end of the day, this is the USA. As stated already ridding people of guns just isn't going to happen. It would be similar to trying to take cars from everyone in the world because some drunk drivers exist. People here simply won't give their guns up, and they have a Constitutional right that backs them up in keeping them, like it or not.


I'm a gun owner myself. I'm also in a situation in which family members have both been killed by guns and protected themselves against immediate bodily harm with guns. My biases could easily sway due to those incidents. But I still don't think guns are the problem.... at least not guns legally owned. And though I don't really think I have a need for a gun for self defense, I wouldn't want to give them all up if the criminals now knew for certain my home couldn't be protected.

This isn't fear or paranoia by any means. This is a safety net against making things less safe in my opinion. In my years of driving I've never been in an accident, but our cars have air bags. I've got insurance for things I've never filed a claim for, yet I still keep paying that insurance. As for people who buy guns because they fear the laws might get tougher that doesn't surprise me either, but it certainly doesn't make them paranoid or afraid either. I haven't owned a motorcycle in years, but if I actually thought they would make laws against purchases I might go pick another one up in a hurry.


I think a great deal of the problem here in the US rests with illegal gun possession. Without enforcement of that problem we get nothing done. But I also think greater accountability for legal gun owners is part of that solution. We register cars on a regular basis, and the same could be done with guns. I would have no issue having laws that require me to do a physical inventory of guns on a regular basis, even if associated with a reasonable fee. Nor would I have issues with more laws that hold legal owners more accountable for ensuring access to their weapons is restricted only to those that could legally possess them already. But of course the strong pro gun crowd will say this removes rights, and that anyone should be able to buy a cannon for their own use.

Without compromise, neither side of the gun debate is going to get much of anything done. And with emotions being so high for so many on both sides of the fence, compromise doesn't seem to be much of an option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Would you like to provide a link to back up your claim then? Please show workings. I should like to check any figures you wish to present.

---

How about you show me one thing the Government(Outside of the Military which is run under different rules) runs more efficiently than the private sector. Just tell me one industry that is free from Government meddling that isn't vastly more efficient and profitable than a government run one.

Just one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Rubbish. You have, over the years, had pointed out to you on these forums many examples of how the application of free market principles to public services has proved far more expensive than would have been the alternative. You choose to forget or ignore these.

---

BULL. Name me one time where I said the the private sector would be more inefficient that a government run service.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

How about you show me one thing the Government(Outside of the Military which is run under different rules) runs more efficiently than the private sector. Just tell me one industry that is free from Government meddling that isn't vastly more efficient and profitable than a government run one.

Just one.

---

SNCF

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

the idea that the free market systems creates more "wastage" than a government run system pretty much means you have nothing intelligent to add to this conversation.

---

As I thought, this claim is baseless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

There was an interesting article on the front page of the Washington Post today titled 'Fearing proposed curbs, gun enthusiasts stock up'. Included in the article was the mention that the FBI reported a record 16.8 million in background checks for guns this year. It was not mentioned how many were were for existing gun owners and how many for new owners. It can be safely assumed that a large percentage, 50% or more, were for new owners. Add this to the existing ownership of firearms and it illustrates the impossibility of any attempt to recover guns from the population.

I am on board with Jag's point that it would be MUCH more productive to attempt to identify those individuals who are at the highest risk of misusing guns and address the situation from that angle.

---

I can only say that I hope the guns works in you favor, and that if anyone starts shooting, you willnt be in their gun-sights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

There are plenty of things in life that you get for free because your government built them with your tax money. I do not see you complaining that they've built roads for you to drive on . . . Can you imagine that the police, the army and the firefighters are also protecting those people with no means even though they are paid by your tax money?!

---

It's hard not to post something sarcastic here, ioan. The US government gets their funding from tax revenues, so it logically follows that if someone is a taxpayer, that person is entitled to use those services. We have a right to complain about the conditions of those roads you mentioned, not just be beholden to the government for having them built.

How about a real simplistic suggestion ?

Bring the armed forces home .
Let the rest of the world sort itself out , and sit them at home to keep things safe .

Given the amount spent on patrolling the world , couldn't the USA have more than just health care ?


I see both sides here sad that there are lives lost .
And , both sides see a problem .


I've been all across the states , and I have felt nervous many times . I watched carefully behind me .
But , I've also been to London , and felt very nervous at seeing signs warning of un-attended bags being potential bombs .

Despite having spent most of my life here in Canada , I have very few recollections of feeling nervous about my safety here .
I guess that's just a throw away statement about how safe I feel .

It relates , though , in the fact that , all patriotism aside , I would see the gun issue as a serious one in the decision as to whether I would ever consider living in the USA .
And , despite really loving a few spots down there in the southwest especially , I would never consider it .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonyvop

BULL. Name me one time where I said the the private sector would be more inefficient that a government run service.

---

That's not what I'm saying, Tony. Read it again. Comprehension isn't your strong point, clearly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

How about a real simplistic suggestion ?

Bring the armed forces home .
Let the rest of the world sort itself out , and sit them at home to keep things safe .

---

Oh yes, great idea — a country policed by the army. What a horrible thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bagwan

I've been all across the states , and I have felt nervous many times . I watched carefully behind me .
But , I've also been to London , and felt very nervous at seeing signs warning of un-attended bags being potential bombs .

---

Why does that make you nervous? The actual risk is very, very small.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Can you imagine that some people without a job and money are walking on those same roads built from your tax money?!

---

When I was 6 years old I didn't have a job but my dad drove me around on those streets. I also had the protection of the military and police force, even though at that point I had contributed nothing to the economy. Your point is a difficult one to follow to its logical conclusion.

Taxation is one of those necessities that has become abused. Many taxes are immoral, IMO. Take, for example, income taxes, one of the most common forms of taxation. I do not know much about the tax rates, so this is a guess, but take three families of 4, all supported by one income. I will try to oversimplify this because with the tax codes and deductions--tax-free IRA, 401K deductions, etc.--this can be a complex process:

Person A is lower middle class, lives in a 3 bedroom apartment, makes $50,000 US per year, and because of his deductions (for his dependents), has a gross taxable salary of less around $25,000-30,000. He has practically zero tax liability. In other words, he doesn't pay federal income taxes but continues to enjoy the protection and infrastructure the governments (state and local) provide. In our country over a third of our citizens do not have to pay federal income taxes.

Person B lives in a 3-bedroom home valued at 300,000, earns a salary of 100,000, and after he pays property taxes (a pre-tax deduction) and gets his standard deductions for his dependents, has a gross taxable income of around 70,000. In the 25% tax bracket, he pays $17,500 in taxes that year. This family is solidly middle class and I would guess half of our citizen fall into this category

Person C lives in a 4-bedroom house worth 1,000,000, earns a salary of 500,000 per year, and after he pays property taxes and gets his standard deduction for his dependents, has a gross taxable income of around 450,000. In the 35% tax bracket, he pays over $155,000 in taxes that year. This person is considered rich, and I'd guess this is <2% of our citizens.

If the US goes off the "fiscal cliff," the tax rates for middle and upper class jump around 3%. Can anyone explain how this is morally justified? Citizens getting the same services?

It's almost the same as saying that the poor person pays $3 for the fast food hamburger, but middle class person pays $30, and the wealthy person pays $300--for the same hamburger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

Pedophilia would not be socially acceptable in any society as it harms children and we're all pretty much hard wired to protect them. Not to say that some don't do those things, but the vast majority of people find it repugnant. So legislation follows use and not the other way around in this case.

---

I don't think you've quite grasped the point here, with all due respect. What was it that made paedophilia repugnant in the first place? It's all very well saying that we find it so now, but that's not in question. How was this attitude originally formed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

Slavery is a somewhat different situation. It has always been more of an economic institution than a social one. Mechanized society has eliminated most of the need for slaves. Though there are always some people who will seek to subject others to their will, be it through slavery or other means.

---

Not sure I quite agree with you, given the very active campaigning against slavery from a social point of view. The effect of this in changing attitudes towards slavery, and its eventually being abolished, cannot simply be overlooked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

I would argue that meaningful legislation almost always follows use, codifying what is already practiced. When legislation tries to force use, outside of current behavior, it nearly always fails. Small impact examples are speed limits and large ones are alcohol and drug prohibitions. A significant proportion of the population must agree with the legislation for it to succeed.

---

Said legislation must also be inherently workable, unlike that relating to drug prohibition, and also be based upon the likelihood of practical effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keysersoze

When I was 6 years old I didn't have a job but my dad drove me around on those streets. I also had the protection of the military and police force, even though at that point I had contributed nothing to the economy. Your point is a difficult one to follow to its logical conclusion.

Taxation is one of those necessities that has become abused. Many taxes are immoral, IMO. Take, for example, income taxes, one of the most common forms of taxation. I do not know much about the tax rates, so this is a guess, but take three families of 4, all supported by one income. I will try to oversimplify this because with the tax codes and deductions--tax-free IRA, 401K deductions, etc.--this can be a complex process:

Person A is lower middle class, lives in a 3 bedroom apartment, makes $50,000 US per year, and because of his deductions (for his dependents), has a gross taxable salary of less around $25,000-30,000. He has practically zero tax liability. In other words, he doesn't pay federal income taxes but continues to enjoy the protection and infrastructure the governments (state and local) provide. In our country over a third of our citizens do not have to pay federal income taxes.

Person B lives in a 3-bedroom home valued at 300,000, earns a salary of 100,000, and after he pays property taxes (a pre-tax deduction) and gets his standard deductions for his dependents, has a gross taxable income of around 70,000. In the 25% tax bracket, he pays $17,500 in taxes that year. This family is solidly middle class and I would guess half of our citizen fall into this category

Person C lives in a 4-bedroom house worth 1,000,000, earns a salary of 500,000 per year, and after he pays property taxes and gets his standard deduction for his dependents, has a gross taxable income of around 450,000. In the 35% tax bracket, he pays over $155,000 in taxes that year. This person is considered rich, and I'd guess this is <2% of our citizens.

If the US goes off the "fiscal cliff," the tax rates for middle and upper class jump around 3%. Can anyone explain how this is morally justified? Citizens getting the same services?

It's almost the same as saying that the poor person pays $3 for the fast food hamburger, but middle class person pays $30, and the wealthy person pays $300--for the same hamburger.

---

I must say, I think in trying to have a discussion about tax I think we really are drifting too far away from the subject. Not your fault, I know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by airshifter

Quickly closing in on 900 posts, yet I fail to see any reasonable solutions that as Jag has asked, are both realistic and practical.

---

Probably because there is no reasonable and practical solution at hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

SNCF

---

A government monopoly which allows no competition? Try again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Oh yes, great idea — a country policed by the army. What a horrible thought.

---

Aside from the name and the color of the uniform what is the difference?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Oh yes, great idea — a country policed by the army. What a horrible thought.

Why does that make you nervous? The actual risk is very, very small.

---

That came off as a bit aggressive . Go easy .

My suggestion would be to have one's armed forces for the purpose of protecting one's own borders .

I remember driving down a shiny , colourful street down in Buffalo(I know , it was a while ago) , where there were a variety of folks shopping away , and going through an intersection where it changed , instantly to delapidated tenements and burned out buildings . Every face on the street(every one black) turned to watch the four pale faces in the shiny car drive by .
I lived at that time in a University town , where the 70,000 or so faces were varied .
It was a culture shock for me . I was genuinely afraid .

And , as far as fearing an un-attended bag in my town , I'm ready to take on all comers .
I've never seen any signs warning about bombs in my town at all .

Back in the early eighties , I did the backpack tour of europe thing , chasing a girl .
I was displaying a Canadian flag on my backpack , and , in England , Holland , and Switzerland , I was met with "Oh , you actually are a Canadian ?" .
They had expected me to be an American , wearing false colours .

That's the main reason I think those troops should come home .