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.