Printable View
The United States Post Office: a government run "business" that consistently runs in the red--4 million in the hole this year. I frankly think they don't even try to break even because, you know, we just raise the debt ceiling when there is a cash-flow problem. Meanwhile, Fed Ex, UPS, DHL, etc., operate efficiently and seem to be doing extremely well financially.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
Like with most things, sure, I often see opinions expressed by people who seem to be a bit kooky (I'm not pointing a finger at anyone in particular here). But at gun shows and things like that, yeah, I see people with or buying guns who make me nervous too. As with most things, it's the radicals and nutjobs who mess it up for everybody else. If the TEA Party had been a real and sincere movement for true fiscal responsibility, and not a cadre of wingnuts who are more concerned with extremist, right wing social policies or economically naive, silly people (led by Sarah Palin, et al), maybe I would have joined. If it was more like United We Stand (from the early 90's), I'm sure I would be a member - as that was the only political movement that I have ever been (and likely ever will be) a member of. But it's not. And my parents taught me very well to be careful of the company that I keep.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Not so much an equation, only to say that there are things that she doesn't like and there are things that I don't like. If her feelings about guns were that strong, I doubt she'd have gone shooting with our group (or spend time with someone like me). But I would be very surprised if she ever bought a firearm. She doesn't lose her mind around firearms. She's just not into them. She didn't grow up around them, as I did.Quote:
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.
Cops here would burn down the city of Rome before they'd ever be disarmed. And what many police here want is even more firepower -which disturbs me (as I know many, many cops). My local police dept. even has full automatics now. :eek: Now what do these hayseeds need with MP5 submachine guns? They don't. But all this anti-terrorist B.S. (like an Islamist could even find this place!) made it possible for them to buy some new "toys" with taxpayer money. But to your point, there clearly is a very deep divide (culturally) between what most people accept there and what most people accept here regarding firearms ownership. Like it or not, that is the reality that we have to accept before we can move on and maybe (I hope) discuss our ideas on lessening firearms related violence here.Quote:
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?
I actually agree with you. But you understand that that ideology shows no sign of changing, don't you? So if we just want to talk about the ideology, then we will get nowhere on the issue of firearms related violence. If the only way that you see to lessen gun violence is to enact some sort of total ban (which many Americans would ignore, just as criminals do now), then we're back to square one, IMO. The people of this nation will not accept such a ban, anymore than the people of your nation would accept complete removal of the monarchy and the tearing down of Buckingham Palace and turning the land into a theme park.Quote:
Into which category falls, to my mind, the very basis of widespread US gun ownership.
To effectively address the specific problem of gun violence (or any problem, really), one has to just accept certain things, whether they are distasteful or not. I have to do that too. Much of the time I don't like it. But to be effective, I sometimes have to do that.
The difference between having a country policed by military authorities and civil ones is, I would suggest, quite substantial.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
Once we accept how our legislation comes to be (and that it's not put forth by a dictator), then I believe the answer becomes more clear. Certainly our society is shaped by legislation. But more importantly, our legislation is shaped by the wants of our society. It is one thing to propose, pass and enact legislation which doesn't have total public support (we are greatly divided on many issues now). But it is quite another to think that something like a total ban on private firearms ownership could be railroaded through Congress, a President would sign it, the Supreme Court would allow it and the various law enforcement bodies would/could enforce it (assuming they'd even want to).Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
Please re-read what I wrote. I said "just words on a piece of paper". With the words that you're speaking about, there has been a will and a desire of the people (right or wrong) to hang onto those words over time - from even before the document was written. It's not as if there was no private firearms ownership when the Second Amendment was written and then all of a sudden there was.Quote:
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.
As far as a total ban on private firearms ownership, my knowledge of U.S. history is not complete enough to know when that time has ever existed. Maybe it did, and I just don't know about it. I've studied Roman history much more than I have studied American history. Maybe after the shootings of John F. Kennedy, his brother, Bobby and Martin Luther King, Jr.? I don't know. But nothing has happened recently which has caused a majority or even a plurality of the people to push their elected representatives for any sort of total ban on firearms ownership here. Things have happened that would probably cause many to want a close review of gun laws, the court system and the mental health system here. The time for that has not passed - it's rolling along quite well, in fact.Quote:
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.
Folks, let me state the obvious here: if you could wave a magic wand and remove all firearms from every home and hand in the United States, you most certainly would have a safer environment overall. No question about it. You wouldn't eliminate crime or even murders and rapes. But with no guns (not even the police or the military), nobody could shoot anybody else - unless we revert to crossbows and bows & arrows. Not only would law abiding citizens, the police and the military not have firearms, but neither would criminals and mentally defective people. If that magic wand could accomplish that, then we could talk... and more Americans than you think would probably support such a (fantasy) measure. But there is no such thing as a magic wand. And just as I have to accept and deal with the reality of things like unions when I seek to restructure a manufacturing process in order to improve productivity and profitability (because that is my goal... the goal is not to bust the union or ban anything), then many of you also have to swallow hard and accept and deal with the reality of the gun culture here... if, if, if your goal in discussing this is to find realistic and practical ways to meaningfully lessen (as you'll never totally eliminate) firearms related violence.
But if the point of all of this is to just speak about and criticize the American gun culture, then that's something else altogether. That's just a dog chasing its tail for the fun of it. Just as with some unions, I may not like the reality that is there... but it is still there. And if I want to improve a current state and create a better future state, I have to work within the bounds of that reality. I have built a pretty decent reputation for being able to enact organizational change. But I'm not (truly) delusional. I know that I can't bend or change reality. I can't make a union disappear. I can't make hardened union members change their beliefs. I can shut their facility (if I'm allowed), but that is very different from my usual stated mission of improving productivity and profitability within a given, fixed facility. So to make some of the positions I see here work, you'd pretty much have to shut down this version of the U.S. and start over again somewhere else. Hey, maybe when we start colonizing the moon we can do this thing. :idea:
I have never seen any improvement in postal service when a private company is involved. But, again, we're going a long way off topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by keysersoze
This is where people fall down, believing the argument is binary. Nobody is saying that a ban or restrictions on gun ownership would "put and end" to shootings, no more than banning drink-driving put an end to road deaths. Of course there will always be a subset of people who disobey any given law, and no sane person would suggest otherwise. However all the evidence shows that of all the westernised industrial nations it is that banning or severely restricting access to firearms reduces the death toll. I really don't understand what is so difficult to accept about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
And you keep responding. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Fed Ex changed the face of the postal service industry thirty odd years ago by offering to ship things faster. They were the only game in town. Then UPS and others quickly followed suit when they figured out the market was there. The USPS has likewise followed suit but it's a money pit--every year. My contention is the "improvement" is being fiscally responsible / profitable, and these other companies do extremely well. I've never seen a US Mail jet, but I see Fed Ex, UPS, DHL all the time. They have figured out how to make money.
Our government, on the other hand, could not care less about being solvent. That's because, drum roll please, they are using Other People's Money. When management has a financial stake in the company, money is spent responsibly. When it's OPP, there is no incentive to care.
The other issue is employee morale. I actually walk into a post office every now and then--what a soul-crushing place to be. Indeed, the phrase "going postal" was born from the phenomenon of disgruntled employees (or ex-employees shooting up the place). Never heard of that happening at these other companies.
Have you seen the USPS ONLY benefits their employees get? It repulses me every time I look at my benefit costs and see Postal/non-postal rates for health benefits. I have to contribute $230 a month more than a postal worker for the same exact health benefit plan. Why is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by keysersoze
Roads was given as an example. When my Son is old enough to drive (but still in education) he will benefit from driving on roads, built with tax money, that he has yet to contribute to. For him then, it is free. (assuning he uses my car..... etc ;) )Quote:
Originally Posted by Starter
as a minor, his contribution is your responsibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by SGWilko