Standup Zone Forum
General => Random => Topic started by: Wetstuff on June 20, 2019, 07:53:10 AM
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCPW4gvlZLc&feature=youtu.be&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&stream=top
When I sent this to my friend on Cape Breton Is. her comment was; there is no waiting if an emergency ...and we all have healthcare.
The counter or perhaps what's being masked...
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-desperate-for-lifesaving-insulin-americans-head-to-canada/
None the less, it should be an interesting political season ahead.
Jim
-
What I found most intersting in the article was, "The reason insulin is cheaper in Canada than in the United States is because Canada regulates drug prices."
This is also true for many other parts of the world, especially in developing nations, drugs are made available at a fraction of what we pay in the US.
But, if the US regulated drug prices to the extent that Canda and other nations, how would the drug compaines survive, let alone create any new drugs?
-
Drug prices, the heath of pharmaceutical companies, the cost of production, and the health industry in the USA in general doesn't reduce to the simple notion of market forces. if it did we'd have better pharma at lower prices. The high prices of drugs in the USA is a result of market manipulation.
-
Drug prices, the heath of pharmaceutical companies, the cost of production, and the health industry in the USA in general doesn't reduce to the simple notion of market forces. if it did we'd have better pharma at lower prices. The high prices of drugs in the USA is a result of market manipulation.
Yes. As long as you won’t vote into power people who will regulate the excesses of big pharma, they will keep ripping you off. You have chosen this.
-
Drug prices, the heath of pharmaceutical companies, the cost of production, and the health industry in the USA in general doesn't reduce to the simple notion of market forces. if it did we'd have better pharma at lower prices. The high prices of drugs in the USA is a result of market manipulation.
No one is saying that (normal) market forces are responsible for high drug costs in the US...there is nothing normal about the economics of healthcare in the US.
I would say that the United States is currently subsidizing (to a significant degree) worldwide pharmaceutical research.
And A-10, we'll see what DT does with drug costs over the next six months or so. Pharmaceutical companies (and their ad agencies) are now in the process of suing the Trump administration over its new pricing disclosure policy for TV ads. So, perhaps he has hit a nerve...we'll see.
-
Never mind...
-
Bean - As far as I can determine, the opinion of the medical community seems to be that Trump’s efforts are sadly likely to be ineffective, and just end up costing you taxpayers money. There are things he could do, but he’s not doing them.
https://m.medicalxpress.com/news/2019-01-trump-admin-price-disclosure-policy.html
From a European perspective, you guys seem very meek and mild about what the pharmaceutical companies are doing to you. If this was happening in France there would be rioting on the streets! :)
-
...you guys seem very meek and mild about what the pharmaceutical companies are doing to you.
Agreed
-
There are some who have the Big Pharma faked
clinical trial view.
Many sheep though. Give themselves away to
THE DOCTOR..
-
Actually, supporting the idea that the USA leads the world in medical research requires that you use the wayback machine and return to the 90's or ignore the effects of population and size of the economy. Normalized for population the USA is currently 14th. I don't know what rank it would have by size of the economy but it would be much lower than just normalized by population given per capita income levels.
I think we're more likely subsidizing yachts than innovative drugs or other medical breakthroughs.
-
You think so huh...
-
true that, PB
medical "market"---what a joke
-
I think Trump smart/cagey enough to parry the Dems in healthcare with 'signing ceremonies' forcing people, like zero-history-of-legislation Bernie, even further off the scale of doable. Trump may corral Dem hopefuls into a round pen where they trample each other like Bernie did to Hillary in '16. The Republicans are clearly more focused on the goal line, not just the 'play of the day'.
I find it interesting that neither side holds their own accountable for losses when a 'no-chance' savages another's campaign right to the end. These incredible egos are never satisfied. Ralph Nader comes to mind after Bernie. These guys have a blank stare when asked about the result...
Jim
-
These incredible egos are never satisfied.
The ultimate roadblock for sure...
-
i am surprised no repubs will run against trump--and i dont mean perot-types---i mean legit, sane, repubs with standards for reasonable behavior
theyre out there--and ill differ with them--but theyre decent humans
wait?? where are they??
kasich?? anyone got the guts to step up??
-
i am surprised no repubs will run against trump--and i dont mean perot-types---i mean legit, sane, repubs with standards for reasonable behavior
theyre out there--and ill differ with them--but theyre decent humans
wait?? where are they??
kasich?? anyone got the guts to step up??
The only republican that could stand a snowball's chance against Trump would be one that is not a politician. I also think that Jon Stewart would stand a better chance at beating him than any of the current large crop of candidates on the other side, for the same reason.
-
Lots of folks voted for Trump for that reason, I liked Howard Schultz for the same reason till he dropped out. Somebody is taking the Dems seriously - there’s a big scare campaign on the tube about Medicare for all
-
Looks like Trump will have ignited a full-on race war before 2020 anyway, so Medicare will be the least of the problems. Maybe he’ll suggest his own wife “goes home”. But at least she was actually an immigrant.
-
Looks like Trump will have ignited a full-on race war before 2020 anyway, so Medicare will be the least of the problems. Maybe he’ll suggest his own wife “goes home”. But at least she was actually an immigrant.
Well now you've got Boris Johnson to worry about, it seems like you're getting surrounded.
-
Looks like Trump will have ignited a full-on race war before 2020 anyway, so Medicare will be the least of the problems. Maybe he’ll suggest his own wife “goes home”. But at least she was actually an immigrant.
Well now you've got Boris Johnson to worry about, it seems like you're getting surrounded.
Well, Boris has appointed plenty of ethnic minority and female candidates to his cabinet. So it seems like he isn’t trying to start a race war, unlike Trump.
And no-one, not even Boris, believes that he will manage to deliver a no-deal Brexit (although Trump apparently does). At least, not without calling a general election first. We have a Prime Minister who has been elected to the post by a minority of people who are mostly rather elderly and out-of-touch, promising to enact a manifesto he knows he can’t deliver. So in that respect he is a lot like Trump. And Boris has also been sacked from his job twice in his career for telling outright lies. In fact, many of his recent speeches have contained mistruths, when they have been fact-checked. So in that respects he is like Trump too. And Boris has also angered our neighbours and friends already, to our disadvantage, so in that respects he’s like Trump too. But we don’t worry too much about Boris because he has made too many enemies to really get much of what he says done, and there isn’t the money to do the rest, especially when the UK currency collapses even more as the Brexit saga continues into 2020 and beyond. That’s a shame actually because beyond the issue of Brexit, there is much to like about what he wants to do. But the economic and cultural disaster of Brexit will weaken us so much that the very communities that voted for it will suffer most, rendering none of the good stuff possible.
Anyhow, I see there are signs that the US economy is faltering now too, partly as a result of Trump’s trade wars. And Iran is playing Trump like a fiddle, so soon you are going to get drawn into another Middle East conflict, only with the international community much less keen to help you than in the Obama era, since he tore up the agreement that was keeping Iran contained, merely because it was one of Obama’s achievements.
But I guess that from your perspective this mess is somehow all the US immigrant’s fault, right? It can’t possibly be Trump’s policies, can it? And he can fix all this by telling a few democratically-elected US-citizen representatives to go back to their rodent-infested, crime-ridden communities, right?
-
I'll vote for the one who has the best believable plan to fix the out of control Prescription Drug prices...
Its only July and I have hit the dreaded donut-hole.... on drugs that are considerably less expensive, Same Brand and Dose, if you go underground and purchase them in/from Canada or Turkey.
-
I'll vote for the one who has the best believable plan to fix the out of control Prescription Drug prices...
Its only July and I have hit the dreaded donut-hole.... on drugs that are considerably less expensive, Same Brand and Dose, if you go underground and purchase them in/from Canada or Turkey.
Well, it’s not going to happen under Trump, is it?
https://youtu.be/tOIOgKbon6Q
-
10, You are a little far from the action. She's more a 'dietician' than a leader - 'lotsa plans. It's more likely that Trump will lose bigger than last time and still win. The Republicans simply know how to man-the-rope in a tug of war. With the Dems, every fifth person is pushing on the next one pulling. Bernie, still pushing at the end, did in Clinton last time. He's likely to do a repeat. Old egos know no bounds.
Jim
-
Yes, a US journalist friend told me exactly the same about Trump’s chances of getting in.
But I don’t know about being far from the action. Here is the problem we face in the UK:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-49145174
Watch the video of the Iranians speaking. And bear in mind that I work alongside Iranian colleagues, who are highly valued. Trump’s little hissy fit, throwing his handbag out of the pram because of Obama, and pulling out of the nuclear deal, is dragging the UK into a dangerous situation with Iran. Trump is of course also alienating the US and making all you guys there less safe too. But my major concern is that we are being tarred by the same brush with a country with which we have had respectable working relations for quite some time now. To what purpose has Trump started this pointless nastiness? None whatsoever beyond his own childish ego. There is no upside for the US. He is just going to create a situation where more US (and UK) troops are killed, and makes a 911 type incident more likely. It’s idiotic and he’s putting you in danger, all because he just wants to tear down anything that a black man had anything to do with. A black man who was more charismatic, better looking, cleverer, and a better orator than he is. Jealousy mixed with racism. And it’s gonna cost you guys, and unfortunately, also the UK (and the innocent Iranian people). So in that way I am quite close to the action, unfortunately.
-
I meant politically, 10. I may read the Economist, but I don't truly care a whit much about the complexity of your politics. I do agree, a destabilized planet is a much more dangerous one. ...but, that seems the norm for almost any generation.
It would be helpful to have a -successful- 1-year war similar to 'Operation Desert Storm'. A big general takes the attention off the White House and the people rally around 'Our Boys'. But, it does not appear there is any place on the game board for Trump to set his tank piece without us (and/or others) taking a hammering. Posturing, then winking at the other side, make still allow him to win the game.
Jim
-
sadly, i agree with your recent writing here, 10
and wet, seems you think we are incapable of "wagging the dog" without seriously tripping over our dicks--i think youre correct---the days we we can operate a contained quick win are long over----conflict=mess!
hope trump and co dont arrange conflict to distract and rally the patriot vote...........scary
there is a case to be made that trump is intellectually capable of processing beyond that the iran deal was obama's so it must be destroyed---he might want a situation in place where he can speedily arrange a "wag the dog" war in time for the election----who better than Iran? esp since Trump/Kushner are owned by Bibi and MBS?!?
-
"I'll vote for the one who has the best believable plan to fix the out of control Prescription Drug prices..."
key issue, yes--but is anything Trump says about anything, let alone an election issue, believable???
-
...I see there are signs that the US economy is faltering now too, partly as a result of Trump’s trade wars...
What is it that you see A10? Elizabeth Warren?
-
...I see there are signs that the US economy is faltering now too, partly as a result of Trump’s trade wars...
What is it that you see A10? Elizabeth Warren?
This is what I see.
US economic growth slows below Trump target https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49130385
-
I'm not sure how any one would come to a conclusion that the US economy is "faltering" based upon that article A10.
You are showing your inner Chicken Little...
-
A10:
"...I see there are signs that the US economy is faltering now too, partly as a result of Trump’s trade wars..."
Bean:
"What is it that you see A10? Elizabeth Warren?"
ya gotta be more clear bean, yet again--i know you like to be all cryptic, but say something sensible for chrissakes--
like do you think a10 sees the weakening economic release data in the lines in elizabeth warren's face? like, instead of tea leaves?
or do you think it's elizabeth warren who will decide to cut the discount rate and fed funds target rates this thurs---because the US economy is widely considered to be at risk of seriously stagnating??
or maybe you disagree that the tariffs have had an ill effect on the economy--maybe you think they're good for the economy?
who knows what you mean?--in case you do, pls explain!
also, it's "WHO is it that you see? Elizabeth Warren?"
-
admin pls delete dupe
-
Looks like Trump will have ignited a full-on race war before 2020 anyway, so Medicare will be the least of the problems. Maybe he’ll suggest his own wife “goes home”. But at least she was actually an immigrant.
Well now you've got Boris Johnson to worry about, it seems like you're getting surrounded.
Well, Boris has appointed plenty of ethnic minority and female candidates to his cabinet. So it seems like he isn’t trying to start a race war, unlike Trump.
But I guess that from your perspective this mess is somehow all the US immigrant’s fault, right? It can’t possibly be Trump’s policies, can it? And he can fix all this by telling a few democratically-elected US-citizen representatives to go back to their rodent-infested, crime-ridden communities, right?
Not just for A10~
Words and phrases that are now days considered racist by the left.
Vermin
Rats
Rodents
Inner-city violence
Inner-city corruption
Inner-city youth w/o a father figure at home
Failing inner-city schools
Infestation
The smell of dead animals
Condemned buildings
All Trump supporters
Many of these words and phrases were used recently by the previous mayor of Baltimore Catherine Pugh, an "obviously racist" black woman. Most have see her video unless you don't go beyond the liberal media bubble.
-
WW, I would like to think that only a small fragment of the "left" would subscribe to that list. What scares me, in light of all the extremism, is that Biden now somehow seems like a moderate choice.
-
Yep Weasel, Trump is “the least racist person there is anywhere in the world”. No doubt about it. He said so, so it must be true.
Great job Trump has done with Little Rocket Man too. Iran, North Korea... normally this is where a president would start calling his equivalents in other countries to share the burden. But when you turn your back on other world leaders and unilaterally tear up agreements to no obvious advantage, then you can’t expect them to come running when you need them.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49173514?intlink_from_url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/ckgj73ey2ymt/north-korea-missile-tests&link_location=live-reporting-story
-
Weasel,
Not sure about some of your list but a lot of it is the targets he picks and the largely baseless opinions he is expressing as president more than the specific language used. The terms are not the problem. You know this. As far as all Trump supporter, I don't think they are all racist but this time around they are all either racist or complicit. Now everyone knows exactly who he is; it isn't just conjecture anymore. There may be a few who really are fooled and don't think he is a xenophobic, misogynist racist who places the interests of himself and cronies above the US.
I admit that some of the worst things I believe about him are things for which there is only circumstantial and/or unsubstantiated evidence. How many sexual predators do you know? I don't think I know any. Is it happenstance that he knows so many and has so any accusations made against him? Thee are lots of legitimate billionaires out there that aren't constantly accused so I have a hard time believing he is targeted so often just for money or fame.
At this point, it is very difficult for me to muster any respect for anyone who supports him.
-
Why did these dumb c'hits do this?
https://assets.realclear.com/images/48/482581.jpg
Was the question; "Would you be willing to pissoff nearly every American who works and pays for health insurance, including the 30 million, not covered by Medicare who currently go without?"
And, 'he who always shakes his finger' like he is saying; "Get off my lawn!" ...lost the governorship of Vermont in three separate attempts. My sense is that Bernie would rather pontificate, and lose ...than legislate, but bathe and preserve the 'purity of his position' for his next run.
Get off my TV, Bernie.
Jim
-
From the POV of someone from another country it certainly was a curious watch, viewing the DNC debates. The format had the same problem that we had with our recent debates for Prime Minister: when a bunch of people from the same side spend a lot of time bitching about each other, everyone ends up looking bad. They seem determined to do the Republican’s work for them.
On a more positive note, I was surprised at how radical some of the proposals were. They often seemed vastly at odds with the predominantly very conservative views typically expressed on this forum. Maybe the people who write on this forum are older and wealthier (and whiter) than the population that the Dems seek to represent?
Anyway, the debate was highly relevant to this thread in that there was a lot of talk about healthcare costs. But much as you guys bellyache about healthcare costs and the fact that on average a US citizen spends twice as much on healthcare as in other countries, and that you allow the pharma companies to totally rip you off in terms of drug costs, the impression I get from this forum is that you don’t really want change enough for anything to change. It seems to me that you are more afraid that someone else might get a better deal than you, than you are that your own healthcare is good. So you are happy for you to all suffer together, just as long as there are other people suffering more than you.
But as I say, I’m an outsider. And to an outsider it seems baffling: you guys all say you want change but aren’t willing to vote for it. So maybe I’ve read this all wrong. And the fact that here in the UK we have healthcare that is free for all at the point of delivery is regarded universally by our citizens as one of our country’s greatest achievements, so it’s hard from my perspective to understand why you wouldn’t do something similar. I’m not sure what you are afraid of: I know you are skeptical about government-run systems, but are you sure that it could be worse than having a bunch of extremely rich people actively trying (and being helped) to rip you off, which is what you have at the moment?
-
10, I think a large part of the problem is that much of the country has been run as a Con Job or Ponzi scheme ..after some undefined period, perhaps starting with the inflationary spike in the 1970s. (?) and, due to our good fortunes: location, resources, war inflation, and talent ...much of the population is in a 'falling forward' posture—they cannot afford to consider alternatives.
'We the people', collectively, via elected officials, have been doing exactly what caused the anguish of 2008 for many decades - we keep borrowing to spend more so we can borrow/spend more.* Nearly every one of those people on that stage has plans to hand out more 'free money' via some entity that will enrich itself.
Old people like me are riding the Socialist Express while screaming at the TV about The Border (while 11 million Juans cut our grass for cash) ...and Baltimore. We got ours - FU!
Jim
*...politicians took a wee small loan a few days ago to carry us thru the election period ..."We don't want to talk about this sort of stuff in front of the children."
-
...but are you sure that it could be worse than having a bunch of extremely rich people actively trying (and being helped) to rip you off, which is what you have at the moment?
That's a great argument A-10, but unlike other countries that offer universal health care, the US simply has too much economic baggage to do the same. For a so-called "rich" country we have vast pockets of poverty that need to be considered.
Keep in mind that any universal health care plan for the US if enacted today, would require a complete re-shuffling of a $700 billion annual industry.
-
...but are you sure that it could be worse than having a bunch of extremely rich people actively trying (and being helped) to rip you off, which is what you have at the moment?
That's a great argument A-10, but unlike other countries that offer universal health care, the US simply has too much economic baggage to do the same. For a so-called "rich" country we have vast pockets of poverty that need to be considered.
Keep in mind that any universal health care plan for the US if enacted today, would require a complete re-shuffling of a $700 billion annual industry.
That last bit is why I think MFA might be a good alternative. They can shore it up so it basically covers everything and then gradually lower the age. Not too slowly; they should have everyone on it within a few years, but slow enough to give the industry time to adjust.
-
...but are you sure that it could be worse than having a bunch of extremely rich people actively trying (and being helped) to rip you off, which is what you have at the moment?
That's a great argument A-10, but unlike other countries that offer universal health care, the US simply has too much economic baggage to do the same. For a so-called "rich" country we have vast pockets of poverty that need to be considered.
But income inequality in the US is only a relatively small amount greater than in the UK. So I suspect this is just another of the narratives that those who benefit from the current healthcare system tell US citizens: “you couldn’t afford to pay for all the poor people”. Well, you could if you paid what you should be paying for your medical care - which is about half what you are currently paying :)
-
Let's assume that 1/2 the cost is correct, what happens to the rest of the $700 billion industry that had existed. My concern is how do we phase out all that dead-wood without creating a vacuum of fraud and abuse.
I think RTG might be on the right track.
-
The 700bn industry will still exist. It’s just that they will be working for YOU not some rich git on a yacht somewhere and his champagne-swilling golf-buddies. So YOU are in control, not them. I’m endlessly amazed at how a bunch of people who say they believe in freedom and liberty are willing to hand over control of the most important thing in their lives (their health) to a bunch of strangers they have absolutely no control over. That’s not freedom, that’s servitude. Why do you accept it?
-
The 700bn industry will still exist. It’s just that they will be working for YOU not some rich git on a yacht somewhere and his champagne-swilling golf-buddies. So YOU are in control, not them. I’m endlessly amazed at how a bunch of people who say they believe in freedom and liberty are willing to hand over control of the most important thing in their lives (their health) to a bunch of strangers they have absolutely no control over. That’s not freedom, that’s servitude. Why do you accept it?
Why? Because many in this country, if not most, don't trust the government's efficiency, politicians make terrible businessmen. When you strip it down to it's basics, healthcare is a business, which in itself does freak many people out, thinking there should be no profit in healthcare, but tell that to a doctor.
-
Medicare for everyone makes a lot more sense than most dipshit ideas like Obamacare. If you look at medicare currently, it's covering health care for the most expensive part of the population--old, fat, sick geezers who are living a lot longer than anyone anticipated. The general run of employer-paid healthcare is much more expensive though it pays for far less expensive people--younger, gainfully employed people. Take a look at the cost for an individual policy for a person with a pre-existing condition. My wife has type one diabetes which she controls precisely. We're paying more than 20K a year for her highly restrictive coverage. There's NO out of area coverage. If she has an issue in Maui it's out of pocket.
The idea that the current healthcare insurance system could be any worse if it were run by the government is laughable. It's insanely inefficient. I find most socialist efforts to be absurd. You have to ignore human history for the last 100 years to expect anything beneficial to come of government replacement or close regulation of private business--except for a few fairly obvious things. Healthcare and financial services spring immediately to mind. There's too much opportunity for abuse and the services are too complex for consumers to really understand what they are getting or for market forces to apply--the market just gets gamed.
-
Let's assume that 1/2 the cost is correct, what happens to the rest of the $700 billion industry that had existed. My concern is how do we phase out all that dead-wood without creating a vacuum of fraud and abuse.
I think RTG might be on the right track.
The only way I think we can get the insurance companies out is to get them all the way out of insuring people currently on Medicare, then stepping back the age. It gives them the warning and time to adjust. Once one segment of the population is fully covered and it starts to include more, the industry is likely to accept it as inevitable. If we try to slowly back them out of everything, it will be a battle every step of the way.
-
Insurance is clearly a big part of the problem/cost.
I find an interesting although perhaps loose corollary in high-seas piracy. With the advent of piracy insurance, the demands for payment have grossly escalated, and the observed crime has spread from the pirate-organizations to ship owners who want to upgrade or simply eliminate assets. The pirates and insurers are more than happy to oblige. Increased shipping costs are passed on to the consumer. Sound familiar?
-
"You have to ignore human history for the last 100 years to expect anything beneficial to come of government replacement or close regulation of private business--except for a few fairly obvious things. Healthcare and financial services spring immediately to mind."
I'd add criminal justice and incarceration, and war to the obvious list---and there's plenty of more gray area stuff---but, from my POV, aint no business that should make no profit from war and enforcing criminal justice on our citizens.....
and dont forget that i believe in well-regulated capitalism and capital markets---hell ive made my living trading capital markets---but there are fuctions of our society that are simply best run by govt
private prisons? eff dat shit
tidbit: what entities have supported anti-marijuana-legalization pacs with the most dollars by a long shot???
THE PRIVATE PRISON CORPS!
-
yep bean--also like the anti-virus and computer security business--symbiosis understates the corruptness
heard a peice today about how big tech entities are beginning to hire their own hacking teams, and retaining hacker consultancies---which dont build security, but seek to penetrate that of the company who pays them----all sorts of potential bad in this
hey, people whove spent their lives learning how best to hack are typically very honest people who can be trusted with the most sensitive of data, right??
-
Just a quick question - now that mass shootings in the US are occurring roughly every day, would your healthcare insurance cover everything if you were shot in one of these “domestic terrorism” incidents?
In the UK, the emergency services would just take you to the nearest (or most appropriate) hospital and you’d get whatever treatment you’d need, with no paperwork, no questions asked, and no bills. But then of course you’d be massively less likely to be caught up in a mass shooting episode in the UK: It hardly ever happens, really, because virtually no-one has a gun.
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/get-there/wp/2018/02/22/the-enormous-economic-cost-of-gun-violence/?utm_term=.6a1af2da6110
-
Hey Area 01, we kicked your ass and booted you out in the 1770's, just so we didnt have to listen to your insistent whining. and if you got off your main stream media pacifier you might notice some politically driven discourse behind all these bullshit false flags. we aint giving up our guns, we still have to deal with the fucked up shit you conspired with in The City and masqueraded as the Federal Reserve. ;) :o ;D
To think this mess is solvable in this current paradigm is laughable. The largest lobbying group in the US is the pharmacy industry. In fact they had this country wrapped up in 1986 when roonie raygun let any company making vaccines and any doctor pushing vaccines off the hook, you cant sue them, not matter happens to you or your kid. And now they are mandatory in several states. so you have a product on the market that has not been tested for dna mutagenic effects, carcinogenic and autoimmune defects and sterility. Not one double blind placebo/saline study to see if they are safe, they are mandatory and you have no recourse in the courts if injured. Go dig and see how many fines merck or Gasco/smith/kline have paid in the last few years. So you have Merck making a cool extra few billion everytime mandatory laws are put in place, yet we have the sickest kids among any 1st world nation. I hate to break to you, but that aint fucking Capitalism.
Ther are plenty of you tube videos of Nixon and the founder of Kaiser laughing their collective asses off in the amount of money the insurance companies and these huge HMOS were going to be able to bilk this system. There is a pleothra of information showing the time line of Rockefeller influence on the allopathic medical money train.
I am not debunking modern medicine, lets be clear, I have degrees in biochem, micro biology and clinical psychophysiology. I worked in emergency medicine for 20 years. Ive had my hands on kids hearts manually pumping them, perfomed chest tubes and cardiocentissi in the field i was a qualified instructor for PALS, ACLS and all the other AHA shit. Ive had a few patients under my care and I marvel at the current science. Shoots, ive died a few times on an operating table and modern medicine brought my ass back. Modern medicne actually put me in that spot, but thats another story.
We are talking insurance. I contracted a virus while Intubating a patient. that virus went to my heart and I had a heart atttack while opening a roof on a structur fire. I rolled off the roof and shattered my ankle. It took me 7 years in court, went broke and essentially lost my marriage fighting the clearest on the job injury that you could possibly have.
I was found to be 99% disabled and awarded 100 grand, my lawyer took 30 grand. so there you go, woohoo 70 grand, but but I got life time medical coverage under CA workers compensation medical program. TO BAD NOBODY FUCKING TAKES THAT INSURANCE!!!!!! AND IF THEY DO, they are usually blind, dont speak english and can barely stay awake during an exam.
SOO, I have to cary blue cross anthem. 660$/mo (and that's half off since my local 1014 felt bad that I cant work so good anymore) just to get in the door when im needing help. then the care provider bills my insurance and they automatically decline payment because im under workers comp. then i get a nasty collection notice from the health care provider that i owe like 1 million dollars or something ridiculous (ever price out a 2 week stay in ICU, Heart MRI, CT scan, two thyroid surgeries in two days and the care of 300 pulmonary emboli?) so then my credit goes to shit and I send the bill to the State insurance controller. then they take another 6 months to pay and in the meantime ive been sent to court for a 1million dollar bill. and as you know, ive been to the hospital and doctor more than once, so its not just one bill. Ive had to claim banckruptcy because of this. All the while im paying my monthly dues, paying a corrupt system, and my fellow californians have to pay my bill because of my workers comp. (sorry that wasn't my stupid idea, I just signed the dotted line when I was told I would be covered if I ever burned alive while working for the infamous LACOFD)
how in the bloody fuck could any sane person look at this and say, well if we just tweak a little here, maybe mix in some capitalism and some govt it will all work out. NOO it wont.
we need to burn the money sytem down and get the feds out of this Fraction reserve banking bullshit, we have to stop letting the HFT fuck around with insurance plans and mortgages. we have to stop leting the govt and the funny money subsidizing the all the industries and let true captialsim and barter come back to this paradigm.
if we dont, we will continue to have the sickest kids, the fattest adults, the most cancer, the most autoimmune issues and so on.
carry on, thats my rant
-
Thank you goodfornothin. But do you actually have an answer to my question? If you are injured in a domestic terrorism act, does your medical insurance cover it? I ask because if my house burns down in an act of terrorism (domestic or otherwise), I am not covered. Same if there is an earthquake. So I was wondering if there is an exemption of this type in US medical insurance (so they could avoid having to pay squillions if there was a 911-type event).
eastbound - unfortunately I can’t read that link unless I have a subscription to that paper.
-
Just a quick question - now that mass shootings in the US are occurring roughly every day, would your healthcare insurance cover everything if you were shot in one of these “domestic terrorism” incidents?
In the UK, the emergency services would just take you to the nearest (or most appropriate) hospital and you’d get whatever treatment you’d need, with no paperwork, no questions asked, and no bills. But then of course you’d be massively less likely to be caught up in a mass shooting episode in the UK: It hardly ever happens, really, because virtually no-one has a gun.
I would assume it would be treated like anything else. My current plan has a $500 ER copay at in network or out of network facility. The tricky part is if you have an extended stay, ICU and/or surgery. There have been some high profile cases where insurance companies paid out when someone is rushed into an out of network hospital because of a violent crime.
Yes we have a bad problem with the gun culture here. Statistics show that a 10% rise in gun ownership in states has resulted in a 35% average increase in mass shootings, and the softer the gun laws, the more likely it is to happen. The "good guy with a gun" rarely happens. In Dayton, the police were on the scene and responded to take the shooter down in under a minute, yet there wee 9 dead and 26 injured. High capacity rapid fire arms should be very tightly controlled. I keep thinking that this will finally be the one that makes people say enough is enough. Only a minority is against stricter gun controls.
-
Just a quick question - now that mass shootings in the US are occurring roughly every day, would your healthcare insurance cover everything if you were shot in one of these “domestic terrorism” incidents?
In the UK, the emergency services would just take you to the nearest (or most appropriate) hospital and you’d get whatever treatment you’d need, with no paperwork, no questions asked, and no bills. But then of course you’d be massively less likely to be caught up in a mass shooting episode in the UK: It hardly ever happens, really, because virtually no-one has a gun.
Your question led me off on a tangent...I'm sure there are statistics on how likely someone in the U.S. is to be involved in a mass shooting. I'd guess it's still a tiny likelihood, at least compared to something like getting killed by a drunk driver.
But is it so small that your question is silly? I asked myself, "So who do I know who's been in a mass shooting?" Me? No. On standupzone, two people. Headmount (as I recall) was in one when he was a kid, and his mom dove on top of him to protect him. Someone else here was at the concert at the Las Vegas shooting. More closely related to me, I couldn't think of anyone at first. But I had a client dive into a doorway to avoid a drive-by shooting. I had an employee who had several cops surround his car, yelled at him to dive to the floor, and surrounded his car aiming at a gang shooter in the car in front of him. I had a stray bullet (from who knows where) go through the window I sit at at work, through a wall, and out another window (when nobody was at work). Two people's heads would have been in its direct path during the workday.
Then, I did think of two mass shootings here. One was stopped at a school I've been to, and know people who graduated from it, where a teacher tackled a student gunman and made the national news about a year ago. Then I remembered a friend of a good friend of mine was in the crowd at the Clackamas Mall shooting a few years ago. He's in the military, and actually pulled his gun and aimed at the shooter, but couldn't safely shoot. He said the shooter saw him and ran into a stairway, where he either shot himself or was shot by police.
So that's actually quite a bit of at least close-to-personal experience with mass shootings or similar. And it doesn't count a few other similarly close shooting deaths that weren't mass shootings.
So I know the focus of you question was on insurance, but scarily, I'd say it can't be dismissed as hypothetical.
-
According to the Insurance Information Institute, the lifetime odds of being killed by firearm assault are 1 in 285. Odds of it happening in a single given year are less than one in 20,000. Injury is much harder to pin down.
https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-mortality-risk
Found another source that said odds of being killed in a mass shooting are over 11,000 to 1.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-gun-death-murder-risk-statistics-2018-3
-
Interesting statistics. But my question wasn’t about how likely it was, it was whether you’d be covered by your medical insurance, or if instead you could end up bankrupted by medical bills because some right wing extremist shot you. Which would seem a rather rum outcome.
This question might not be relevant to most of the US population in any one year, but presumably it would be to the approx 24000 who have been either killed or injured so far this year?
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/
-
you should at least try to be funny A10, my 13 year old kid can gaslight better than that.
Your statistical pontifications are meaningless, more people die of car accidents, should we ban those. People kill people, simple as that.
and NO, if you go to the ER for a GSW then your insurance will pay. If you are broke with no insurance then the hospital will end up billing you. Your best bet is to be broke with no insurance. you will get the best care that way. The state will end up picking up the bill. If you have insurance, youll still be paying. The hospital could give two shits how you got shot, they want their money for services rendered.
I cant tell you how many dudes I transported, while in the air (I worked on the air ship as qualified relief medic) and getting asked, HOW the hell am I going to pay for this, the answer was, dont worry the good people of CA will being paying this bill.
far less people get shot anyways, if your going to walk around scared of guns, you should be far more worried about getting stabbed. most of our calls in violent areas was stabbing or just plain fist a cuff ass beatings.
-
“Your statistical pontifications are meaningless, more people die of car accidents, should we ban those. People kill people, simple as that.”
You sound like an intelligent guy, so you must know that it is neither as simple as that, nor does this argument hold any water at all. It is like suggesting that treatment for depression shouldn’t be offered because “people will kill themselves, as simple as that”. Similarly, huge strides have been made in the design of automobiles (particularly in Europe) that have reduced the proportion of deaths of drivers, passengers and pedestrians over the last 30 years. But you are like one of those throwbacks who complains about seatbelts, airbags, pedestrian-friendly hoods etc.
Just because *all* deaths won’t be stopped by gun control does not mean that it is not valuable. Reduction of risk is good too.
But it’s great to know that all of the people injured in the 253 mass killings in the US this year (alone) will get the hospital treatment they require, although I’m still not clear if you could end up with huge bills you couldn’t afford.
-
Naw, not that smart, just a smart ass 8) hopefully it comes across as just fucking around.
I am very experienced in this situation, not so much read. Ive been at the business end of more violence than I care to remember. Ive worked in Inglewood, Compton, El Monte and Lancaster. I know those places are meaningless to you, but watch the Movie Colors. Its more of a documentary. I worked next to one of the most violent LA Co prisons and dragged dead dudes out of there consistently. This fear of guns is unwarranted. the numbers and propaganda behind it are just that, propaganda to sway votes during election cycles. Ive scene entire blocks lit up by Ak's and Ar-15's. Ive still treated far more stabbing victims though and a guy with a knife scares me far more than a gun. at least I knew I had a chance with my bullet proof vest. knives not so much. I mean, ive scene some crazy shit with just pennies in a sock more than GSW. ever try to intubate a dude who got pussy whipped by a sock and pennies, holly shit, good luck.
a great number of the larger shootings are for display. if you care to reach past your mental fences you could find a lot in crisis actors, multiple shooters and mass media manipulation. Im not saying MK ultra is mind warping everything. Crazy conspiracy theorist, im not. im a realist that has scene some shit. Ive been on scene with high ranking dudes and the story in the paper the next day is most certainly not what happened to said high ranking dude. I had friends in Vegas too, they said there were multiple shooters, period. They were in the Army with me, they know the sound of death all too well. Im definitely not here to argue what other people saw that day. but there is always a lot going on, and perspectives change just from standing up. no different than 9/11. I know how things burn, lots of classes and time on the tip of a nozzle. 3 buildings dont fall from two planes and a fire. you cant get a fire to burn evenly for a building to fall in on itself. and once again, I have friends I worked with that transferred from NYFD and they heard explosive devices. so to think these larger shootings could just be organic nut jobs does not sit well with me. agendas to move markets, its a part of our life.
My current business partner is an X-captain of the Bloods. He was the guy that was dealing with the CIA and Pablo Escobar bringing in the drugs. Gary Webb and Michael Ruppert reported on all of this. It was marginalized and they were both driven to their graves for stating such Conspiracy theories. They were not, our govt and your govt are running drugs and guns. have you scene the numbers of people in our Private prisons on drug charges. You think that is just happening due to the normal rule of a bell curve? Have we scene drug reform? have we scene the poppy production decrease or increase in Afghanistan? and what are the death rates of opiate OD? ahh just numbers on a stat line to suss out on the internet? No its being pushed, through propaganda. I saw the results on the street and I have friends now that verify it was and still is happening.
The guns are being run by the govt. plain and simple and the violence will not stop, because they dont want it to stop. see your govt and our govt seem to think fear porn is the best way to sway public opinion to get the proper official in place to make sure the petrodollar stays in play. So thinking your saving a couple hundred lives by banning AR15's is fucking ridiculous. Id rather public angst steer towards Merck corp and stop killing our populace with opiates. that is a solvable problem. pull out of afganistan, stop protecting the silk road and put every exececutive on the MErck board in prioson, for life. were does the jolly ol BBC play into the picture of fox news or cnn? chirppity chirp is all i hear. Its a shame we dont all look into things deeper than the misinformation constantly being pushed.
oh yeah, insurance. Yes you can go broke and will have to file for bankruptcy if your insurance sucks and you get shot by a Vaccine injured nut job on anti depressants and mind controlled by MK ultra, hahahahahahahahaahahah
-
Interesting statistics. But my question wasn’t about how likely it was, it was whether you’d be covered by your medical insurance, or if instead you could end up bankrupted by medical bills because some right wing extremist shot you. Which would seem a rather rum outcome.
This question might not be relevant to most of the US population in any one year, but presumably it would be to the approx 24000 who have been either killed or injured so far this year?
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/
The stats were in answer to pdxmike's question. I answered the question about care in an earlier reply. Being hospitalized after being wounded by gunfire is more common than a lot of diseases that pay plenty of attention to, especially for people living in homes with firearms.
-
https://www.npr.org/2018/04/05/599773911/how-the-nra-worked-to-stifle-gun-violence-research
https://www.newyorker.com/podcast/political-scene/the-nras-financial-mess
-
https://www.npr.org/2018/04/05/599773911/how-the-nra-worked-to-stifle-gun-violence-research
https://www.newyorker.com/podcast/political-scene/the-nras-financial-mess
The NRA claim that they only want to keep the CDC from advocating gun control, not stop all research on guns, is ridiculous. All legitimate research on guns and public health will implicitly advocate for stricter gun control.
-
Being hospitalized after being wounded by gunfire is more common than a lot of diseases that pay plenty of attention to, especially for people living in homes with firearms.
And I know a lot of people living in homes with firearms who have never been shot. And I'm one of them.
I live in Texas where firearms in homes are quite common since Texas is a hunting state for wild game. I grew up with firearms which included centerfire rifles, rimfire rifles and centerfire handguns and this started when I was 12 years old. My late dad taught me to respect a firearms whether it was loaded or not. He started to teach me about guns and how to use them when I was 12 years old. He taught me at this age when in his opinion, I was mentally prepared for them. And I was very proficient with all of them when it comes to marksmenship at the tender age of 12.
Fast forward 57 years to day. There are twelve (12) firearms in my home at this time. Eleven (11) firearms are mine and my wife owns one (1). These firearms are broken down into categories which are:
Three (3) centerfire 12 gauge shotguns (2 semi-automatic, 1 pump).
Three (3), centerfire bolt action rifles in calibers 25-06, 270, 30-06.
Three (3) rimfire rifles in 22 long rifle caliber (2 bolt actions, 1 semi-automatic).
Three (3) centerfire revolvers (cylinder) all in caliber 357 magnum.
Three (3) firearms are always loaded which are (1 semi-automatic 12 gauge shotgun, 2 revolver (cylinder) 357's). One (1) loaded 357 revolver is mine and one (1) loaded 357 is my wife's.
Since Texas is such a humid state weather wise, I clean all twelve (12) firearms every six months like clockwork to keep the rust at bay. Since I've been around firearms since I was 12 years of age; my late dad taught me respect first, then safety, then marksmenship and then how to disassemble all of them for proper cleaning.
I've never had a loaded firearm accidentally discharge. The three loaded firearms are always unloaded first before I clean them. And even if I lost my temper in a dispute, I wouldn't be dumb enough to use a firearm to settle a dispute. Would I ever shoot my wife? No. Would I worry my wife would ever shoot me? No. My wife and I opposites, but we would never settle an argument between us with a firearm.
Now getting back to statistics. If I made every decision I've made in my 69 years of life based solely on stats and I went along with conventional wisdom, I would never have made the decisions I did make and have made during my lifetime.
And if you would like to see them, I will post a picture of them all together, but I think the photo would have to be in a public post since I do not think a photo can be sent in a private message. I say this since I've never been able to send a photo in a private message.
-
Nightwing,
The stats say you, or someone in your home, are a lot more likely to be shot if you have guns that if you don't. This is pretty intuitively obvious if you don't want to use stats. It's a lot more likely that a resident or visitor to the home will be shot, accidentally or otherwise, than an intruder. Collectively, guns don't make people safer. but individually gun owners think they do; the statistics are about other people who are less responsible.
-
guns are lethal devices designed to efficiently kill animals and humans
they can be operated irreversibly (that shot at dies) based on a decision made in milliseconds
bad decisions and mistakes can be made by anyone, no matter their confidence in themselves and training
the more guns and gun owners, the more irreversible deadly results
there are very few guns in the United Kingdom, due to laws in force---there are close to zero gun deaths (certainly relative to the USA) in the united kingdom---simple math---fewer efficient lethal devices==fewer deaths by said efficient lethal devices
NRA and gun manufacturers have played our political system like a fine violin, and brought much death, serious injury and co$t to our country
and a lot of guns around the house isnt only about accidents and angry domestic murder---if a house gets burglarized, the guns harvested go directly to criminal hands, by definition
every gun was designed to kill, and can very well end up killing----surprise!
-
Does this level of gun ownership seem sensible?
But it seems that the weight of opinion is now heading towards greater gun control in the US. There are probably some old fogies who wish that life was still like it was back in the 1950s, but my guess is that the younger generation will ensure that US gun ownership levels starts to look a bit more like that of any other country in the world.
Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41488081
-
Nightwing:
Like you, I own a lot of guns. Like you, I've never accidentally discharged one or shot anyone. I'm not actually certain how many, a couple of pistols, a few deer/elk rifles, a few accurized .22's that I built, lots of shotguns. I don't view any of them as personal protection, just sport. Would I mind having them turned into high-grade steel if there was a national gun elimination policy? Not at all.
Take the pistols, leave me a shotgun and a deer rifle and I'm fine. I'm not part of a militia. I don't connect guns to my manhood. I have seen firsthand how many people who I wouldn't trust with a slingshot are armed to the teeth. Would I give up my guns to have them disarmed? You bet. I'll bet dollars to donuts you know people like that too.
And actually, they can have my deer rifle too. I'd really rather bow hunt. One of the many reasons I like bowhunting is that there are fewer armed morons running around in the woods, fewer road hunters shooting at every bush that moves, few people talking about taking "sound shots".
-
On another subject, Paul Krugman's take on health insurance (on Masterclass), the problems and general solutions, are illuminating. He didn't say anything that I didn't already know, but he puts all the parts together in a very useful way. Some of the conclusions from this synthesis seem doable. If nothing else it's nice to know some people at least have ideas to repair this clusterfuck.
I also started watching the Axelrod/Rove class, and it's a lot less painful than I thought.
-
PB, is Krugman still supporting "Medicare for America"?
And A-10, in response to your previous question about health coverage for injuries sustained through “terrorism”. In general those would be covered. For instance, the cost to the insurance companies for the 9-11 attack continues and is well over $70 billion.
-
Actually, he covers three approaches and discusses the value and problems with each.
Interestingly we have all three systems in the USA, but only for specific populations.
For me the most enlightening part of the lectures is that the big costs of health insurance are already covered by taxes--Medicare, Medicaid, and veterans. The largest number of uninsured are young people, who have the lowest cost of coverage and who are the most likely to leave the insurance pool if the costs are too high. Subsidizing their coverage has a cost of about $100 Billion, which sounds like a lot but its a fart in a windstorm of our total medical care cost.
It's obvious that the system is thoroughly broken. We have the highest cost by a big margin and poor outcome--lower life expectancy than 2/3rd of the wealthy countries. There are some straightforward ways to find systems that work better and deploy them, but the politics of change are ugly.
-
@ RideTheGlide
Now lets dissect your comments one by one.
That old tired lament that someone in "my" home is going to get shot because I have guns in the house is just "blather". Nine (9) of my firearms are unloaded. The three (3) loaded firearms are NOT laying around in plain sight. These firearms are strategically concealed where I can get to one of them in 15 seconds of time or less if the need arises. And I don't advertise to the world where they are concealed either.
When my wife's eldest niece comes to visit and brings along her adopted now 2 1/2 year old child, I put those concealed weapons up in a different place where the child can never reach them. When the niece and child leave our home to go back to their home, those weapons are immediately put
back in their previously concealed place.
All of my friends, they are like me. They all grew up with firearms. Not one of them has ever shot someone, by accident or intentionally in their homes. But if the occasion called for it with an intruder, it wouldn't matter to them or me, they would shoot. And they would shoot to kill. They are trained like I am in firearms. BTW, none of my friends know where my unloaded or loaded weapons are concealed in my home.
Now lets take your well worn lament that "guns don't make people safer". That is just "bunk" for the want of a better term in a public forum.
I live in Montgomery county in Texas in a small town of about 1,100 residents "way out in the boondocks". I bought the home I'm now living in, in 1978 which is 41 years ago. The subdivision back then probably had 15 homes in it. Back in that time, fourteen (14) of those homes got robbed at night. Two (2) of those instances were home invasions. After that incident, these residents bought a firearm.
The other twelve (12) homes, their vehicles were broken into because these people were just plain lazy and didn't think about security back in those days. Instead of putting all of their vehicles in their garages, they left some of their vehicles out in their driveway. After these resident's vehicles were broken into, all of these residents bought a firearm.
My home or vehicles have never been broken into because I always put my vehicles in my garage for the night. And the main reason my home has never been broken into during that time, at that time I had a sign in my front yard which had a picture of a revolver's bore sticking straight out where the cylinder could be seen with a human hand around the revolver's grip and the words below were on the sign which read:
"Never mind the Dog, Beware of Owner". And this message to the thieves or intruders casing my home at that time, they knew what they would run into if they decided my home was going to be their target. So my firearms at that time kept my home from being robbed and still do today.
Now, let me take you into my dark realm. The next few paragraphs will let you inside my mindset when it comes to firearms. Just remember this. I can turn off my "conscious" like a light switch going on or off.
Do you know why most of the sick shooters pick schools, bars, churches, malls, etc: for their mass shootings? Because it is a "target rich environment" since these places don't allow (in some states) firearms on the premises. For a mass shooter, it is like shooting at fish in a barrel.
Since I live in Texas, I have a Concealed Handgun License. This allows me to carry a concealed handgun. I have two malls closet to me where I live. With all the crazy types in the world today, I'm well aware of these target rich environments which appeal to these shooters where they can kill or wound lots of people.
This is why when I go to either of the two malls where I live where concealed firearms are allowed, I wear a sports coat. The coat covers and "hides" the shoulder holster under my left arm pit (I'm right handed) and in that holster is a stainless steel, 4" barreled Smith & Wesson Model 66 revolver with target sights and a 6 shot ammo cylinder. I don't need the target sights since I can shoot instinctively which means I can pick a spot on a target and the bullet will usually hit the spot I'm looking at.
The above is called "instinctive shooting" and I found I had this gift when I took up archery with a 66" long recurve bow. My arrow upon release from the string, most always went to the spot on a target I was looking at.
Now for a hypothetical scenario. Remember the two malls? Lets say I'm in one of those malls and one of these armed shooters with an assault rifle is bent on murdering lots of people. Lets also say there is no armed guards on duty at these malls. Lets say there are 3,000 people in the mall at that time. When the shooting starts, lets say no one is hit by a bullet. That means there will be 2,999 people running for their lives as fast as they can looking for the nearest exit doors.
That leaves one (1) person who won't be running for the exit doors. That person would be me. Since I'm carrying a concealed handgun, the first thing I'm going to do is take off my shoes. Why? With no shoes on and only socks covering my feet, I can walk around without making a sound. I'll take stock of where the noise of the shots are coming from and I'll head that way towards the shooter.
In this scenario, I've got the advantage over the shooter. The shooter is not expecting anyone to be armed. Basically, my goal is to locate and see the shooter before the shooter sees me or ever sees me. And if I succeed, then I outflank the shooter and come up from behind the shooter. Then I would tell the shooter to "drop the weapon to the ground, get down on their knees and put their hands on their necks behind their head".
Of course, the shooter will not comply because in the shooter's mind, the shooter cannot believe there is someone behind the shooter who is armed and would take a shot at him/her. So the shooter would most likely start to turn around with his weapon and that is when I'd put three (3) shots into him and I'd be aiming for the shooter's upper torso so those shots from a 357 magnum would kill him before the shooter's body would hit the ground.
Now lets say the shooter sees me in an instant before I see him. Then I would take cover in a concealed spot, stay concealed enough so when the shooter comes by looking for me, when I see him, I'd just fire three (3) shots into him/her and blow the shooter away without ever saying a word to the shooter.
My late dad was in WW2 and retired from the US Army after 23 years of service. He taught me military combat tactics with firearms because he said to me, I might need these tactics one day and to learn and remember them well because if placed in a situation, these tactics would keep me alive.
I've been taking a long road to get to this point, but the point I'm getting is this. I don't buy the "guns don't make people safer" comment. That is anti-gun rhetoric that comes from people who don't like firearms, who also don't think people, like me, should own them. And to top it off, these people believe the general population should not be allowed to buy or own any firearms. So I say to the anti-gun crowd, "I'm not buying what you're shoveling. Not now, now ever". And those statistics the anti-gun crowd is always (pardon the pun) trumpeting; as far as I'm concerned, "the antigun crowd can put those statistics where the sun doesn't shine" if you get my drift.
And for those who what to tell me about England and firearms. England may not allow their citizens to own them and that is correct, but the city of London is awash with thugs on mopeds threatening people with knives every day.
-
Guns, knives, whatever it takes for the disenfranchised.
Get off your soaking wet political cardboard boxes and recognize the truth.
In the news this morning, 20% of millennials have no friends, what's up with that? Way too much time spent with their alternative reality online. An alternative reality is not reality.
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-millenials-no-friends-yougov-poll-20190804-ek5odkrxmvbfhex7ytvp2p6rwy-story.html
-
You got that right buddy... er, ah, who ever you are ;D
-
Lots of assumptions made. I am not against people owning firearms. I believe in common sense controls. Trump rolled back Obama's executive order against selling firearms to certain mentally ill individuals on day one. I think that was a sensible control that should have been left in place.
As far as other forms of viloence in the world, it is true that people are killed lots of other ways. Here is a list of the intentional homicide rate per 100,000 worldwide:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5?most_recent_value_desc=true
Our rate is 5, which doesn't seem too bad when you look at El Salvador at 83, Honduras at 57. Lots of others have it really bad, overrun by drug lords, war lords and gangs. At only 5, we are down lower with Kenya, Cuba, Angola and Sudan. At 4, you find countries like Lebanon and Pakistan. You mentioned the violence in the UK. They and most of the EU are down lower with a rate of 1 per 100,000. That's right - you are 5 times more likely to die of intentional homicide here.
Oh, and guess what - all those "other causes" of violent behavior - video games, isolation, etc, etc, etc - they have them too.
The anecdata about gun owners with no trouble - I have some stories also. 5 per 100,000 is a low number and most of use won't be killed that way. But is it really acceptable to have a rate 5 times that of peer countries?
-
Night Wing, that’s a nice fantasy you have described - where you are the hero saving all the people, with bare feet like Bruce Willis in Die Hard. But sadly life doesn’t go down like it does in the movies. Your bullet would probably e.g. go straight through the gunman and kill an 8 year-old girl. That’s the way life is. It bites you in the ass.
You’d be more likely to save peoples’ lives by volunteering at a crisis centre for people with mental health problems. Especially depressed and disenfranchised young men having suicidal and nihilistic thoughts. Then you really would be a hero.
-
Nightwing:
Like you, I own a lot of guns. Like you, I've never accidentally discharged one or shot anyone. I'm not actually certain how many, a couple of pistols, a few deer/elk rifles, a few accurized .22's that I built, lots of shotguns. I don't view any of them as personal protection, just sport. Would I mind having them turned into high-grade steel if there was a national gun elimination policy? Not at all.
Take the pistols, leave me a shotgun and a deer rifle and I'm fine. I'm not part of a militia. I don't connect guns to my manhood. I have seen firsthand how many people who I wouldn't trust with a slingshot are armed to the teeth. Would I give up my guns to have them disarmed? You bet. I'll bet dollars to donuts you know people like that too.
I'm a little like you some ways and in other ways, I'm not.
All of my rifles and shotguns I've owned were for hunting. The centerfire rifles were used to hunt deer and wild hogs. When it comes to game, everything I have ever killed with my rifles, I ate the wild game.
My shotguns were "originally" used to hunt birds (quail, pheasant, doves, ducks) and I ate every bird I killed with my shotguns. Rabbits and squirrels were also table fare and I used my shotguns for these animals as well.
The 22 caliber rifles were used primarily for target shooting and in reality, to get me to used to a rifle when I moved up to the bigger centerfire rifle calibers with their kick.
Our handguns were mostly used for tactical combat training and my dad taught me those tactics starting when I was 16 years old.
Unlike you, even if there was a new law which would disarm the American people, I would never turn in my firearms to the government. Not now, not ever. As the say and I'm sure you will understand my reasoning behind my "never" statement. The reason is; "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions".
Of all of my 12 firearms I presently own, 9 of them were mine, 3 of them belonged to my late dad. Two of my late dad's firearms hold a very special significance to me. And those two are below.
My late dad had a Remington Model 700 bolt action deer hunting rifle in 243 caliber. But he always liked a Winchester Model 70 in 270 caliber. But he would never buy one because at that time, all the 270's came with a 22" barrel.
One day I got a wild hare and called up the Winchester factory in the month of July in 2000 and found out Winchester came out with a Model 70 in 270 caliber with a "24" barrel. I was giddy with excitement. Winchester told me there was one shipped new in the box to a pawn shop just 12 miles from me. I called the pawn shop and was told it was still there and not spoken for. I told the person I wanted it and I would be there in 20 minutes.
The person was right on the money since it was a Winchester Model 70 Classic Classic Sporter with a tapered barrel in a 24" length. I bought that rifle and gave it to my dad that July. We had scheduled a November 2000 year deer hunt together. And I was really looking forward to this trip since my dad was 85 years old.
But disaster struck. My dad had a massive heart attack in the October of 2000 and passed away, two weeks short of our hunting trip together. To make a long story short, since I lived 221 miles from my parents home, when I returned to my home, after selling his house and squaring things away (I spent two two months at his house), when I returned home, his Winchester Model 70 rifle came with me.
And so did his stainless steel 4" barreled Smith & Wesson Model 66 Combat Magnum 6 shot revolver with target sights in 357 caliber which became mine and which is now my licensed concealed handgun. As for handguns; handguns have their place, but not in the place where, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions".
I'm old and I don't care if people call me a "fuddy duddy" or a "luddite". I'm not naive or gullible. Criminals do not obey laws and if need be when "push comes to shove", neither will I.
Sooner or later, if you (or someone like you) find yourselves in an active shooter situation in a large public place, you better hope there is someone standing close to you wearing a long sleeve sport coat on a hot summer day, just like I do, because what is underneath that someone's sport coat just might save your life.............if you get my drift.
-
Pono & NightWing,
I don't have much issue with you being able to have a weapon that could take out an active shooter. I have a little; I think you should have to take a test like a driver would before they can hit the streets in a car. The shooter in Dayton was killed in under a minute, but he shot 35 people. I have a very big issue with people being able to walk around with high capacity rapid fire weapons.
-
Night Wing, that’s a nice fantasy you have described - where you are the hero saving all the people, with bare feet like Bruce Willis in Die Hard. But sadly life doesn’t go down like it does in the movies. Your bullet would probably e.g. go straight through the gunman and kill an 8 year-old girl. That’s the way life is. It bites you in the ass.
You’d be more likely to save peoples’ lives by volunteering at a crisis centre for people with mental health problems. Especially depressed and disenfranchised young men having suicidal and nihilistic thoughts. Then you really would be a hero.
It is not fantasy. Some people can take a life and some people can't. I've known all my life I could take a life if need be. And I'm just like my late dad. And this wasn't about being a hero. The only person I'm saving was "me".
And for your comment about putting a bullet through a shooter and hitting an 8 year old girl and killing her, in this day and age parents teach their children to run from shooters. Not stand around to be used as a stationary target. The mother or father will instinctively run away from the shooter and the child will be running also with their parents or their parents will be carrying the child.
One last item. I'm not from the "hand wringing" or "bleeding heart" persuasion. I don't care if a shooter is "having a bad day, has a history of mental illness, is disenfranchised with suicidal or nilhilistic thoughts or is pissed off if I don't bend to the shooter's ideology". If a shooter comes across me in a public place and I'm carrying a concealed handgun, then I'm the shooter's immediate problem because I have no qualms about killing a shooter no matter what the shooters problem is. To put it bluntly, I'd be a lone shooter's unexpected nightmare because my backbone "doesn't" have the consistency of jello either.
I figure it this way. if a shooter crosses my path, there are only two outcomes. With my combat firearms training which I do 4 times a year and have been doing for the last 30 years, the shooter has about a 1% chance of killing me while I have about a 99% chance of killing the shooter. And I like those odds.
If I don't keep up with my firearms skills, my skills will degrade over time. And since I have to re-qualify on the shooting range every so often to keep my concealed handgun license "active", I make sure I pass on the very first time when I re-qualify because a shooter "isn't going to give me a second chance".
When I re-qualify, the person who is giving me my re-qualifying test on the shooting range will tell me, "this is one time only". I either pass and keep my license or I fail and I lose my license. But I know I will always pass the test because on the outdoor shooting ranges I go to, to keep my skills from slipping, I practice at longer shooting distances that what the state of Texas official shooting distance is, to get or keep a concealed handgun license.
Now for another hypothetical scenario.
If you lived where I live and had a concealed handgun license and you were carrying a concealed handgun on your person; if you were in a enclosed place where there was an active shooter coming your way, would you go towards the shooter and engage the shooter or would you turn tail and hurriedly go the opposite way?
-
Hi Night Wing, Do you think there should be a ban on automatic weapons?
-
If you lived where I live and had a concealed handgun license and you were carrying a concealed handgun on your person; if you were in a enclosed place where there was an active shooter coming your way, would you go towards the shooter and engage the shooter or would you turn tail and hurriedly go the opposite way?
If I were in that situation, I would draw and fire if the shooter came my way. I would not draw a weapon and start moving into the area where the shooter is. LEOs show up and are confused by a civilian with a gun out. Others with your same mind set may be moving in also and you can end up shooting at each other. Lots of these shooters are trained and wearing body armor. Anyway, there are many things that can go wrong.
IMO, we need to do more to try to prevent these situations from happening in the first place and try to limit the carnage when they do by limiting access to high capacity rapid fire guns to those that can prove a need.
-
If you lived where I live and had a concealed handgun license and you were carrying a concealed handgun on your person; if you were in a enclosed place where there was an active shooter coming your way, would you go towards the shooter and engage the shooter or would you turn tail and hurriedly go the opposite way?
If I were in that situation, I would draw and fire if the shooter came my way. I would not draw a weapon and start moving into the area where the shooter is. LEOs show up and are confused by a civilian with a gun out. Others with your same mind set may be moving in also and you can end up shooting at each other. Lots of these shooters are trained and wearing body armor. Anyway, there are many things that can go wrong.
In my state of Texas, when you have a concealed handgun license, which I will now refer to as a "CHL", there is a great responsibility that goes with owning a CHL and in how a concealed handgun is used depending on the situation at hand.
An LEO is trained to look for an active shooter who usually has more than one firearm on his person and the shooter is also carrying lots of ammo. They are also trained to look for shooters wearing body armor.
So if the LEO's find me, they are going to find a guy wearing a long sleeve sport coat, a colored shirt opened at the neck, slacks for pants and on my feet, most likely a pair of penny loafer shoes (when it comes to shoes, I'm not a slave to "fashion". I wear what is comfortable on my feet) which I've been wearing for the last 52 years. In other words, I don't fit the profile of a mass shooter.
I will put my handgun on the floor, put my arms and hands high in the air, back away from my handgun on the floor while stating my name and also telling them I have a concealed handgun license in my wallet. The LEO's will most likely come over to me and while one LEO is covering me with his weapon, the other LEO will be going through my wallet looking for my CHL and confirming my photo ID on it and also looking at it to make sure my CHL is still active.
Continuing on. Most LEO's will most likely NOT show up in one (1) minute of time like it was done in Ohio. Most LEO's will (hopefully) show up in five (5) minutes of time. That is fast, but for me, that is 4 minutes and 50 seconds "too long" in time.
If a mass shooter is wearing full body armor including face and head armor, I'm going to aim for the shooter's head or face depending on what the shooter gives me as a target to shoot at. A 357 revolver loaded with six (6,) 158 grain Federal Hydro Shoks hollow point bullets with a post in the bottom of the hollow point, each bullet packs a lot of foot pounds of energy.
If my 357 bullet would hit a mass shooter in the head or face, even with the shooter wearing face and head armor, the 357 bullet is going to knock the shooter to the ground on his backside. And if you don't believe me with regards to the foot pounds of energy, go find a bullet ballistics table on the internet and look it up. Then with the mass shooter lying on the ground, I would run over to the shooter and kick his weapon away from him and keep my weapon trained on his head or face until the LEO's show up.
Now, if there is another CHL guy in the place, we would find a way to quickly communicate with each other and then tag team the mass shooter until the LEO's show up. If fhe LEO's don't show up in time, then it would be up to us to take the shooter out.
-
Nightwing,
Profiling? Really? That's part of your potential plan?
There is a common profile in mental/emotional state:
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-08-04/el-paso-dayton-gilroy-mass-shooters-data
Physical attributes? Not so much, except for the last couple of years where they have been almost exclusively white males. Lots of follow up stories with various pictures that look like just another average guy. I would hope the LEOs would be better trained than to discount the possibility that you were the shooter based on appearance. But following protocol, after wasting a couple of minutes of precious time, they would figure out you probably weren't involved.
BTW, I strongly agree with the conclusion of the linked article:
Instead of simply rehearsing for the inevitable, we need to use that data to drive effective prevention strategies.
-
'Save me Heysus, from those who would save me.' When you listen to 'gun nuts' speak, there is an inflated sense of self, and paranoia, that changes gun ownership from defensive/sport use to judgemental aggression. I would never knowingly walk into a public facility where some civilian was armed.
I was supposedly trained to shoot in the Army, they give you little badges. BUT, they had God's good sense—not to let us play with guns like pet Cobras ...or obsess with their biblical potential to right the wrongs of the unjust/unworthy ...or overcome a poor relationship with our mothers.
The guys I know who used them in Asia—used them hard. They maintain some historical/experiential prejudices but none would walk the streets with a weapon. This is truly a unique, national pathology that will likely not see a cure in my lifetime.
Jim
-
we have a serious problem with many types of gun violence in our country
in many ways the milk is spilt, given the incredible number of guns already floating around in our country
it is time that the gun manufacturers and the nra no longer control the gun agenda, so we can finally work to rein in gun violence in our country
we need to get going asap to study our problems and work to fix the terrible gun violence in our country
who the eff thought that the 100 round magazines should be legal and easily bought by effing civilians?
this device allowed the dayton shooter to shoot 45 rounds in less than one minute--appalling---is this a democracy?? really??
-
This really becomes a question about whether meaningful gun legislation could be enacted without diminishing the checks and balances provided by the 2nd Amendment. That is of course, only if you subscribe to the premise that the Amendment actually provides any significant form of checks and balances.
-
This really becomes a question about whether meaningful gun legislation could be enacted without diminishing the checks and balances provided by the 2nd Amendment. That is of course, only if you subscribe to the premise that the Amendment actually provides any significant form of checks and balances.
Big can of worms if you read some of the old correspondence with Alexander Hamilton. It's pretty clear that how it is currently interpreted was not the intent. It was intermingled with the idea of not having a standing army.
The NRA and some gun owners are intractable as far as any compromise goes. They see even the slightest changes as a first step to taking away their guns. most of us are fine with people having guns for reasonable uses - target shooting, hunting and even personal protection in places where no other measures provide it. But I would like to see other measures providing protection in public places.
-
i think the second amendment has little to do with contemporary society
fewer than 25% of americans own a gun
we dont need another hero
-
EB, if you are saying that we should scrap the 2nd Amendment, are there other checks and balances within the Constitution that you are also prepared to let go?
-
where did i say to scrap the 2nd amendment?
i said the second amendment has little to do with contemporary us society
again tho Bean, you seem timid about expressing an actual POV of your own---do YOU think the 2nd amendment as written in the 1780's, some 250 years ago, is relevant and applicable and important to contemporary US society?
also what are the checks and balances you refer to, as implied or defined in the second amentment? and how would those checks and balances work in our country today, 2019??
-
also what are the checks and balances you refer to, as implied or defined in the second amentment? and how would those checks and balances work in our country today, 2019??
That's what I was asking you EB.
My POV is that it doesn't seem that we can have meaningful gun legislation without dismantling the 2nd Amendment and I would be reluctant to do that. But maybe that's what's needed...
Contemporary case law tells us that the 2nd Amendment is still relevant today.
-
I think the second amendment applies perfectly well to muzzle loaders.
-
That's just it Bill, it's hard to believe that the framers were simply thinking about the ownership of muzzle loaders when they crafted the 2nd Amendment.
-
Why not? If you interpret the second amendment strictly by its language than it doesn't guarantee private ownership. We assume the intent was something else. Following that logic, it can be almost anything you want it to be.
Here's the full text: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
So, does that mean only in the context of a militia, which at the time of the framing was explicitly the US military, since it all it was is Militia, meaning an army composed of private citizen instead of professional soldiers?
If it's just that all citizens, regardless of their suitability to be armed, criminal record, demonstrated irresponsibility, mental illness, terminal stupidity, can have any gun they want, then why does the solitary defining sentence start off by talking about Militia?
The constitution isn't a perfect document, the framers were smart as hell, but they couldn't predict the future any more than we can. A lot of the intent and protections have been gamed away. An independent supreme court, Presidents unable to create law or declare war. It's an interesting read, I've been through it dozens of times. It takes about an hour to read the full text, the Bill of Rights, and the amendments. I'm continually amazed at what people claim the constitution does or doesn't say. It's a fairly simple document.
-
An interesting read on the history of the second amendment. It doesn't really "take a side". It just explains the various viewpoints and language being reconciled from a historical perspective. In fact, the NRA quotes a lot of what is in this as what was on the framers' minds, but without the context of the recent past causing it to be at forefront of their minds.
https://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1956&context=vulr
The issue was tightly intertwined with prohibiting a standing army under the control of the federal government. It is very clear that they had absolute resolve that people in their time and circumstance should not have their arms taken away. But the reasoning for it is largely if not completely out of context now, IMO. It seems clear that the part about the militia was very explicit for reasons of protecting states/citizens from the central government by force if necessary.
-
Probably, which makes sense in a time when the government consisted of fifty people and a dog, and the army didn't have things like tanks and nuclear weapons. They just got rid of a king, they didn't want another. In fact, if you read history closely they were a little nutty about that. They also didn't want democracy, that was viewed as the straight road to disaster.
The NRA typically uses the bits they want to use, one reason I ditched my membership long ago. They rarely use the entire sentence that comprises the second amendment, just that last bit.
-
Hi Night Wing, Do you think there should be a ban on automatic weapons?
I would have no problems with banning for sale assault type weapons such as a AR-15's and/or AK-47's if these weapons are fully automatic. These type of weapons aren't really sport hunting weapons like a bolt action deer rifle is or semi-automatic shotgun which is basically used for wing shooting.
At the present time, all fully automatic weapons are illegal to buy and own except if you have collector's permit to buy and own a fully automatic weapon. One of my college friends I have known since I was 18 years old, he has a collector's permit and he owns a fully automatic Thompson Sub Machine gun in 45 caliber. I also know he owns a fully automatic WW2, M-1 Carbine in 30 caliber.
Getting back to the AR-15's and AK-47's sold in gun establishments. These firearms are semi-automatic and since they are semi's, they are "legal" under the present gun laws. The problem with these firearms, it doesn't take much "tinkering with" so make them fully automatic.
There are some politicians in the House and Senate who don't want the general population of the US to be able to "buy and own" firearms of any kind. Since I was young, I have never trusted politicians.
Say a politician writes a bill banning "all" automatic weapons. Even though two of my shotguns are semi's, the politician could say my shotguns are fully automatic, even if he/she knew they are not fully automatic, but his/her hidden agenda is to disarm the legal gun owning general population and then, my semi-auto shotguns would be illegal.
The government knows I have long guns and handguns in my possession since I had to fill out a Form 4473 when I bought them. On a 4473, you can purchase 4 firearms at one time. Lets say I put 3 shotguns on the form under the heading of "Long Gun". When the store clerk calls NICS for the background check, NICS is going to ask, Long Gun or Handgun. NICS never asks "how many long guns" so for all intent and purposes, NICS thinks I bought one (1) long gun.
-
I think the idea that some politicians done't want Americans to be able to buy and own any weapons is a straw man argument. I would like you to specifically name a few and reference something they said or did that is evidence of that belief.
I agree that fully automatic weapons should not be available and would go a step further and say that in order to have a high capacity rapid fire semi automatic firearm you need to have just cause. Many of them fire 3 rounds per second with a 30 round clip that can be swapped out in about 5 seconds. So 100 rounds in under a minute. I think there should be a limit to how much firepower you can carry out in public spaces, particularly concealed.
-
Bean, your question below states that the 2nd Amendment is one of a number of "checks and balances within the constitution":
"EB, if you are saying that we should scrap the 2nd Amendment, are there other checks and balances within the Constitution that you are also prepared to let go?"
you ducked my question about how the 2nd amendment can be considered a check and balance in 2019
i see the concept of militias checking and balancing any part of our contemporary government today--local state or federal--as ridiculous
like the story of this armed idiot taking it into his own hands against our "corrupt" govt:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/22/us/pizzagate-attack-sentence.html
-
i see the concept of militias checking and balancing any part of our contemporary government today--local state or federal--as ridiculous
Never say never, but I would agree and hope that checking against tyranny would be highly unlikely.
The checks and balances related to the 2nd Amendment are not necessarily limited to gun control or state vs federal rights. The concept of collective rights and individual rights are defined in related contemporary case law.
So, how do we get meaningful legislation without dismantling the 2nd Amendment?
-
check into legislation called "gun control"
check into assault and military weapons bans
check into smart guns
i could go on and on--and there'd be fewer deaths
then check into mcconnell and repubs' continual and complete stonewall, as paid for by NRA, on any issues to restrict gun manufacturing sales and access---facts---and people keep dying!!!
checks and balance emanate from the 2nd amendment?? in our current siciety?? hogwash---explain whatever caselaw you reference and how it reinforces checks and balances--you cant!!
-
check into legislation called "gun control"
check into assault and military weapons bans
check into smart guns
i could go on and on--and there'd be fewer deaths
then check into mcconnell and repubs' continual and complete stonewall, as paid for by NRA, on any issues to restrict gun manufacturing sales and access---facts---and people keep dying!!!
checks and balance emanate from the 2nd amendment?? in our current siciety?? hogwash---explain whatever caselaw you reference and how it reinforces checks and balances--you cant!!
One of the checks that should be enforced is limiting the power McConnell has. Scheduling bills for votes is supposed to be more of an administrative duty to eliminate chaos from senators arguing over what bill should be discussed and voted on next. He is not supposed to kill bills by never bringing them to the floor. One man is not supposed to control what legislation can be passed in a democratic republic. Even a presidential veto can be overridden. McConnell's implicit veto can not.
-
well said--and mcconell's veto power is for sale!!
nra bought the whole subscription, with auto-renew!!
that guns be readily available, on hand, as a "check and balance" on our government, for any idiot(s) with a gun to decide to implement, is effing scary.
we are reaping what's been sown.................
hope the milk's not hopelessly spilt already...........
-
that guns be readily available, on hand, as a "check and balance" on our government, for any idiot(s) with a gun to decide to implement, is effing scary.
No one (in this thread) is saying that
-
check into legislation called "gun control"
check into assault and military weapons bans
Gun control and weapons bans run afoul of the 2nd Amendment (District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).
By the way, that's really the only point I'm trying to make in this discussion. To be successful in firearms legislation you have to deal with the 2nd Amendment. Everything else is just noise.
There is a case brewing out of NYC, regarding and old law banning the transportation of licensed handguns out of the city. In other words, if you compete in pistol match competition outside NYC, you can't transport your handgun.
The Supreme Court will hear the case (New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York) in October.
-
that reasonable gun control and the 2nd amendment cant coexist is bogus NRA propaganda
“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
the brits are our allies now!
and i supported a heavily armed military! so our state can be free from the likes of putin, mbs etc--not some self-appointed aryan militia on a bender about hilary's peedophile ring, or some other hannity-fueled garbage (which of course, if hannity-fueled, is also trump-fueled!)
some would like our state free from the invasion of drug dealing and raping mexicans----when they are incited by our president, shit hits the fan, as effected by miltary assault weapons capable of shooting 100 rounds per minute, which can be purchased easier than a car or boat! or even alcohol, if you look as young as i do!!!
jeeze i am a specimen
-
Yes, you certainly are.
Which reminds me, I have to follow my dog around the yard later to pick up a specimen for her vet visit. ;D
-
A long term debate on the meaning. Chief Justice Warren called the NRA's use of the second amendment a scam. I don't remember the wording, but at that time the supreme court considered the militia part of that sentence to be the governing phrase. If we had a population like Switzerland, where male able-bodied citizens are universally required to do military service (women can and do volunteer) then fully automatic weapons would be present in a closet in most homes--for the exact purpose stated in the second amendment. And it would make sense. Of course, it would be nice if we were as sane as the swiss, but that's another topic. At least there would be training, and discipline around the use and purpose of that firearm, and it would belong to the government and not be present after service was completed.
The NRA points to Switzerland all the time as a place where gun ownership doesn't result in gun violence, conveniently forgetting that Switzerland has strict laws about gun ownership revolving around competence and responsibility. I'm not a fan of Business Insider--too much bullshit in general, but this is a reasonably factual article.
https://www.businessinsider.com/switzerland-gun-laws-rates-of-gun-deaths-2018-2#around-the-world-stronger-gun-laws-have-been-linked-to-fewer-gun-deaths-that-has-been-the-case-in-switzerland-too-11
-
I think you mean Justice Warren Berger, "fraud on the American Public". Hey look, even the Heller case was decided 5 to 4. Clearly there were dissenting opinions - all (pretty much) along party lines.
A problem we face is that our legislators are too lazy to adopt/adapt law (in this case the 2nd Amendment) that makes sense in the current climate.
Too busy poking each other with sticks...
-
In the historical link I posted earlier (up a few, maybe several), it mentioned motivations/discussions that were recorded but not part of the final amendment, unfortunately IMO. Keeping the federal government from establishing a standing army was a primary motivation for ensuring that state militia citizen soldiers could not have their weapons collected by the federal government.
-
it's anything but laziness--it's about repub obstructionism in the senate--where any discussion that might annoy nra is shut down before it can begin--by oconnell repub senate majority leader---reality
hell, nra/gun manufacturers successfully lobbied (paid) our politicians to shut down funding for research on how bad gun violence is, and how to prevent more gun deaths and maimings----nra doesnt want us even studying the problem! so we dont study it!! democracy? where? which way'd he go?
-
Democracy went out the window in my state some time ago. In US congressional elections in 2018, the GOP had 51% of the vote to the DEMs 49% and because of how the districts are drawn, the GOP won 10 seats and the DEMs 3. Had it been 51% DEM to 49% GOP. there is one district that *might* have flipped.
-
it's anything but laziness--it's about repub obstructionism in the senate--where any discussion that might annoy nra is shut down before it can begin--by oconnell repub senate majority leader---reality
What happened in the years the dems had majority control (2008-2010 for instance)? Congress should have been hot off the Heller decision (2008) and ready to rumble. But no, just crickets...
Plenty of blame to go around.
-
it's anything but laziness--it's about repub obstructionism in the senate--where any discussion that might annoy nra is shut down before it can begin--by oconnell repub senate majority leader---reality
What happened in the years the dems had majority control (2008-2010 for instance)? Congress should have been hot off the Heller decision (2008) and ready to rumble. But no, just crickets...
Plenty of blame to go around.
Yeah, it isn't just party lines. There is some geography involved. Crickets from Bernie in 2016, for example. He has changed his position for 2020.
-
were are these gun injuries coming from, mostly Chicago at the moment. Its inner city gang ativity generating a large part of the statistics. You want to curb the gun violence, go and talk to some heavy hitters on the street corner and let me know how that goes. guns dont kill people, people do.
The United States Govt is running the biggest market of heavy hitting guns, and your turning to government to save you from gun violence? its comical. Go and free up this insane drug war and get the cia out of the opium trade and the weapons trade, then lets see were those numbers are.
how about we get the govt out of running false flags to divert attention from the child trafficking using gun violence as a cover. how about we hold the pharmaceutical companies feet to the fire for pushing these insanely overreaching psychotropics, that are proving they dont fucking work.
how about we address the autoimmune responses we are getting from the vaccines that are causing the kids to suffer ADHD, most of these shooters start all on the same path, Ritalin for the adhd, suicidal ideations, instutionalized, then put on heavy psychotropics. Its a pattern that must be addressed.
good luck pushing this emotionally charged subject, nobody is going to take anybodies gun without some serious blood shed.
-
were are these gun injuries coming from, mostly Chicago at the moment. Its inner city gang ativity generating a large part of the statistics. You want to curb the gun violence, go and talk to some heavy hitters on the street corner and let me know how that goes. guns dont kill people, people do.
The United States Govt is running the biggest market of heavy hitting guns, and your turning to government to save you from gun violence? its comical. Go and free up this insane drug war and get the cia out of the opium trade and the weapons trade, then lets see were those numbers are.
how about we get the govt out of running false flags to divert attention from the child trafficking using gun violence as a cover. how about we hold the pharmaceutical companies feet to the fire for pushing these insanely overreaching psychotropics, that are proving they dont fucking work.
how about we address the autoimmune responses we are getting from the vaccines that are causing the kids to suffer ADHD, most of these shooters start all on the same path, Ritalin for the adhd, suicidal ideations, instutionalized, then put on heavy psychotropics. Its a pattern that must be addressed.
good luck pushing this emotionally charged subject, nobody is going to take anybodies gun without some serious blood shed.
Here is where the gun violence is:
(https://www.thetrace.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/gva-map-1920x1000-c-top.jpg)
https://www.thetrace.org/2018/12/gun-violence-shooting-map-data/ (https://www.thetrace.org/2018/12/gun-violence-shooting-map-data/)
-
that guns be readily available, on hand, as a "check and balance" on our government, for any idiot(s) with a gun to decide to implement, is effing scary.
No one (in this thread) is saying that
"no one (in this thread)", Bean, then, must include you--
so, correct me in i'm wrong, but YOU dont think the right to bear arms and form militia as spec'ed in the 2nd amendment would appropriately provide that, today in 2019, individuals and small groups be armed to defend against or attack our government to prevent tyranny and/or unfair rule?
To check and/or balance an over-reaching government? Right?
since no one on this thread feels that way....youre part of no one, right??
it's a challenge to get to it, but i think you actually expressed a POV--cryptic and riddling as ever, but it was there for the diligent miner--oh if i got it wrong pls explain.....
-
Eastbound,
I believe the referenced militias were state militias, not just anyone who banded together (gangs?) to challenge the federal government for establishing a standing army and/or tyranny.
-
understood, rtg---in 1785 it was considered important that states (and, i thought also, localities and less formally established entities) be able to rise up against centralized authority such as that of the king (were our federal govt to evolve as such)--2nd amendment was considered check and balance in case federal gov't overreached
whatever the specifics of the concept, it is ridiculous nra propaganda that we need to preserve the ability to engage in violent armed confrontation with our federal goverment---today in 2019---lol!
to describe the 2nd amendment as a "check and a balance" is just another talking point paid for by nra and its pr lobby machine
so when bean asks "what other checks and balances would you quash?" or some such, the question is loaded that the 2nd amendment is a legit contemporary check and balance--well it's not--and the concept is pure nra garbage
nuff of the bean riddles---waste of time
-
As I said before EB, it doesn't seem to me, that we can have meaningful gun legislation without dismantling the 2nd Amendment and I would be reluctant to do that. But maybe that's what's needed...(a 2nd Amendment overhaul).
Contemporary case law tells us that the 2nd Amendment is still relevant today - yes even with respect to checks and balances not having to do with defense against tyrrany. Think more along the lines of the checks and balances related to federal and state legislation.
Riddle me this EB - who was it that said:
“Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard, don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like.”
I'll give you a hint, he is not a friend of the NRA, and probably not a big fan of DT.
-
Bean, gun "laws" and legislation don't have to infringe on the 2nd Amendment...they just have to put some teeth in the punishment for having/using a gun in a manner never intended under said Amendment.
Have all the guns you want, but brandish one in public in the commission of a crime and/or as intimidation, and go sit in jail for 20-30 years minimum. No BS excuse that the gun wasn't loaded or that you never intended to actually use it...well then don't actually bring it with you dimwit. >:(
Also, to the "concealed" superheroes...as Johnny Cash would advise, "Don't take your guns to town son, Leave your guns at home Bill". If you wanna play cop, cool...then go sign up with an employment application, pass all the tests and training, then carry your gun and have some actual authority to use it on and off duty.
But we don't need any undercover fantasy judge, jury, and executioner wandering around out amongst us, no matter how grateful you think we unarmed, fleeing potential victims might be indebted to you for saving the day...while you also delay responding officers in dealing with you while you too are running around with a gun, instead of them continuing after the other dimwit citizen with probably a bigger, badder weapon than you have.
So let's leave the 2nd Amendment alone then, but make sure that we have laws/legislation that makes it a pretty long prison stay if one doesn't use their gun(s) as was intended back when it was enacted.
IOWs, go hunt with them if you need to in order to feed your family (killing animals for sport or just because you can is BS), or if you need protection if/when an intruder breaks into your home, or if/when you're called upon to form an armed citizen militia to go up against the government (good luck with the outcome of that one) then by all means go and dig your weapon(s) outta the closet.
But if someone's not using or owning them for one of those 3 things (feel free to add a 4th or 5th if I missed something), then they're not using them as intended by the 2nd Amendment, and need to be severely punished for it. JMO...OMMV.
EDIT: For clarification of where I coming from, I own multiple firearms, and don't plan on getting rid of any of them anytime soon. But I only use them on occasion at legal gun ranges for sport, and practice making sure I won't miss the intruder if it ever comes to that, and because I buy my food in the market I don't need to hunt, and don't see myself joining a militia anytime soon in my future. =)
-
Bean,
The political reality is that grudging acceptance of reasonable controls with the 2nd left in force is the best we can hope for in the near future, so I am hoping for it.
-
Sano,
I don't think punitive measures will help much. People who use a gun in a crime are willing to take a life and already know they are potentially looking at life or even death. The mass shooters often take their own lives or get into shoot outs with authorities they know they are going to lose.
When they do deep dives after the fact, they usually find some disturbing stuff. I think that if someone want a high capacity rapid fire weapon, they should have the deep dive done before the purchase. There are legitimate reasons for wanting that capability/capacity, but it should not be very easy to get; the reason should be a good one and you should be willing to be thoroughly vetted. Wanting to get more shots in during a block of range time is not a good enough reason in my book.
-
Seems like the feds are going to approve a national red flag bill. Lindsey Graham is heading it up, Trump is in support of it as well as some Rs and most Ds..
I think the point is that someone can get their guns taken away in much the same way as you can get a restraining order. Family member, girlfriend etc tells the court and somehow the guns get into the hands of the government.
Easy enough to write the law I suppose, but imagine being at the point of the spear (police officer)having to somehow get all of the guns from someone that is dangerous.
-
Sano,
I don't think punitive measures will help much. People who use a gun in a crime are willing to take a life and already know they are potentially looking at life or even death. The mass shooters often take their own lives or get into shoot outs with authorities they know they are going to lose.
When they do deep dives after the fact, they usually find some disturbing stuff. I think that if someone want a high capacity rapid fire weapon, they should have the deep dive done before the purchase. There are legitimate reasons for wanting that capability/capacity, but it should not be very easy to get; the reason should be a good one and you should be willing to be thoroughly vetted. Wanting to get more shots in during a block of range time is not a good enough reason in my book.
RTG, I don't have any problem with the logic of "high capacity rapid fire weapon(s)" not needing to be in the hands of Joe Public, and putting restrictions on those I think are still within the boundaries of the amendment formers' ability (or lack thereof) to see into the future, and therefore meet the intent of the 2nd, and the common sense that I believe the formers would expect us to have in today's technology and society.
As far as the "Criminals will always be criminals" axiom as a reason for not severely punishing them for carrying a gun during their acts...I'm cool with enacting laws that would allow these criminals to turn themselves in ahead of time for life long incarceration if they already know they're going to use a gun in a crime, and probably gonna be caught anyway, thus saving us all time and money.
But since I'm pretty sure there's not gonna be a big rush of the gun-touting criminals who'd actually do that....maybe we get really tough on those who do carry a weapon while committing a crime....to the point that the "carrying the gun" part carries a much tougher sentence than whatever usual petty crimes these dill-weeds think they need to commit with it.
-
Seems like the feds are going to approve a national red flag bill. Lindsey Graham is heading it up, Trump is in support of it as well as some Rs and most Ds..
I think the point is that someone can get their guns taken away in much the same way as you can get a restraining order. Family member, girlfriend etc tells the court and somehow the guns get into the hands of the government.
Easy enough to write the law I suppose, but imagine being at the point of the spear (police officer)having to somehow get all of the guns from someone that is dangerous.
Yep, this seems like a poster bills for the, "You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers" crowd.
I also wonder if writing/rambling certain things on a forum could be construed by some as that person being "a half bubble off" or IOWs "dangerous"?
And talk about a 2nd amendment nightmare...now the guvmint gets to decide who's sane enough to have a gun when called to be in the militia that might need to form against that same guvmint deciding who gets to be armed for the fight. Good one. ::)
Weird world we're living in fo sho. :o
-
Sano,
I don't think punitive measures will help much. People who use a gun in a crime are willing to take a life and already know they are potentially looking at life or even death. The mass shooters often take their own lives or get into shoot outs with authorities they know they are going to lose.
When they do deep dives after the fact, they usually find some disturbing stuff. I think that if someone want a high capacity rapid fire weapon, they should have the deep dive done before the purchase. There are legitimate reasons for wanting that capability/capacity, but it should not be very easy to get; the reason should be a good one and you should be willing to be thoroughly vetted. Wanting to get more shots in during a block of range time is not a good enough reason in my book.
RTG, I don't have any problem with the logic of "high capacity rapid fire weapon(s)" not needing to be in the hands of Joe Public, and putting restrictions on those I think are still within the boundaries of the amendment formers' ability (or lack thereof) to see into the future, and therefore meet the intent of the 2nd, and the common sense that I believe the formers would expect us to have in today's technology and society.
As far as the "Criminals will always be criminals" axiom as a reason for not severely punishing them for carrying a gun during their acts...I'm cool with enacting laws that would allow these criminals to turn themselves in ahead of time for life long incarceration if they already know they're going to use a gun in a crime, and probably gonna be caught anyway, thus saving us all time and money.
But since I'm pretty sure there's not gonna be a big rush of the gun-touting criminals who'd actually do that....maybe we get really tough on those who do carry a weapon while committing a crime....to the point that the "carrying the gun" part carries a much tougher sentence than whatever usual petty crimes these dill-weeds think they need to commit with it.
We have had the add on for guns used in crimes since the 70s and it doesn't seem that it has done any good. It has been applied unevenly to defendants with a clear racial bias and is at odds with criminal justice reforms to keep us from having a ridiculously high incarceration rate. One defendant was sentenced to 55 years on a pot charge that would have had a maximum of 15 years with no gun and the gun was not on his person (he was out of the car). I think 55 years is a much tougher sentence than 15.
-
Depends on your state RTG...CA judges can tack on an additional 3 to 15 years in a firearms enhanced crime. Far from the 55 years the pothead got (and that all gun carrying criminals should get). But look at the bright side, at least you know that for the next 55 years there's one less gun carrying nitwit wandering in public or driving on the streets. My apologies if you thought I'd feel sorry for some poor ol innocent doper driving around with a gun in his car. Nope, if cops, and military personal can't be stoned or carry pot when they carry or drive with their weapons...dopers or criminals selling dope shouldn't have them in their possession (or in the vehicle we can assume he just got out of) either.
-
Depends on your state RTG...CA judges can tack on an additional 3 to 15 years in a firearms enhanced crime. Far from the 55 years the pothead got (and that all gun carrying criminals should get). But look at the bright side, at least you know that for the next 55 years there's one less gun carrying nitwit wandering in public or driving on the streets. My apologies if you thought I'd feel sorry for some poor ol innocent doper driving around with a gun in his car. Nope, if cops, and military personal can't be stoned or carry pot when they carry or drive with their weapons...dopers or criminals selling dope shouldn't have them in their possession (or in the vehicle we can assume he just got out of) either.
The point is that increased penalties as a deterrent doesn't work.
-
Actually, they work pretty well when they are applied uniformly. But that's almost impossible and taking discretion out of the hands of judges and LEOs has lots of negative consequences.
Saying you'd need to dismantle the second amendment seems like a throw-away line. That isn't how lawmaking works. You'd have to reverse some particularly stupid supreme court decisions, but that happens all the time. Emphasizing the first third of the sentence would eliminate a lot of guesswork, and "the right to bear arms" leaves lots of wiggle room. Does that mean grenade launchers, tanks, tactical nukes. Apparently not. I don't see the second amendment being dismantled to support that level of rationality. Other levels remain available. How about one sporting rifle--bolt action, three shot. Period.
-
Actually, they work pretty well when they are applied uniformly. But that's almost impossible and taking discretion out of the hands of judges and LEOs has lots of negative consequences.
Saying you'd need to dismantle the second amendment seems like a throw-away line. That isn't how lawmaking works. You'd have to reverse some particularly stupid supreme court decisions, but that happens all the time. Emphasizing the first third of the sentence would eliminate a lot of guesswork, and "the right to bear arms" leaves lots of wiggle room. Does that mean grenade launchers, tanks, tactical nukes. Apparently not. I don't see the second amendment being dismantled to support that level of rationality. Other levels remain available. How about one sporting rifle--bolt action, three shot. Period.
I don't promote the idea of trying to dismantle the 2nd. I like the idea of limiting how much firepower you can have without a really good reason. Background checks for any sale; no loopholes. Deep dive background checks for anyone asking for more than a pistol or rifle with a limited number of shots and/or rapid fire. Semi-automatic for convenience is fine with a restricted rate of fire, maybe a shot every second or two. Again - you could get more or faster, but you need a reason and to submit to a through background check. As far as carrying, concealed or otherwise, for protection, I think that is fine unless other means of protection are provided. So if there are safety officers at a sporting event, you can trust that that's enough security or choose not to go, but you can't take a weapon in.
I really don't think that the idea that we need guns to stand up to the government is relevant. If you aren't in the Guard, the 2nd doesn't apply. If you are in the reserves or active military then it absolutely does not apply. A standing federal army is one of the things the 2nd was meant to protect us from. So the only reason I am against dismantling the 2nd is the political reality of the push back if we try.
-
The second amendment can be left standing as is and there can be protection from civilian use of military weapons. Lets look at how the 1st amendment is written and interpreted.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
When the constitution says "or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;" it is not absolutely giving everyone the right to say anything they want to. There are restrictions and laws against Libel, Slander, Defamation, Advocacy of Illegal Action, and Fighting Words (words which "by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace).
That's the way the constitution works folks, it is up to interpretation. That is why there is a Supreme court to argue and decide what each word and phrase means.
-
As a former career Law Enforcement Officer, I think it would be wonderful if we could snap our fingers and make some or even all types of firearms go away. No one has a firearm, no one needs to protect their self from people with firearms if there aren’t any. However, the genie has been out of the bottle for a long while. How are you going to make someone who is a criminal turn in his firearms? Anyone on here want to volunteer to be the guy to collect all the MS 13 weapons?
When all these criminal people still have their firearms, do you expect other law abiding people not not be able to protect themselves against armed criminals? Are you going to turn otherwise law abiding people into criminals if they balk at turning in their means of protection against armed criminals? Anyone on here going to volunteer to go out to some of the rural counties in say, West Virginia, eastern Washington State, or Alabama and ask Bubba to hand over his AK? The reason some of these guys own their semiautomatic rifles is because the government might some day come for those very rifles.
It’s dream world versus reality.
-
Also, as for the red flag bills, as distasteful as it is, it’s not a crime to be a hater. And it’s not a crime to be weird and mysterious. I doubt most red flag bills would pass muster of a court review. That’s one reason crazy people roam the streets everywhere. They’re not considered dangerous until they kill someone. What would stop someone who is anti firearms to call the police on anyone he/she knows owns a firearm under the pretense if a red flag condition? People do that now, when someone is carrying completely legally, some of these anti firearms people call 911 to report a man with a gun to try to intimidate people from carrying legally.
-
As a former career Law Enforcement Officer, I think it would be wonderful if we could snap our fingers and make some or even all types of firearms go away. No one has a firearm, no one needs to protect their self from people with firearms if there aren’t any. However, the genie has been out of the bottle for a long while. How are you going to make someone who is a criminal turn in his firearms? Anyone on here want to volunteer to be the guy to collect all the MS 13 weapons?
When all these criminal people still have their firearms, do you expect other law abiding people not not be able to protect themselves against armed criminals? Are you going to turn otherwise law abiding people into criminals if they balk at turning in their means of protection against armed criminals? Anyone on here going to volunteer to go out to some of the rural counties in say, West Virginia, eastern Washington State, or Alabama and ask Bubba to hand over his AK? The reason some of these guys own their semiautomatic rifles is because the government might some day come for those very rifles.
It’s dream world versus reality.
I am having trouble locating the stat, but my guess is your experience will back it up. In a substantial number of firearm homicides, maybe even a majority, the killer obtained the gun somewhat recently. It seems like it was one or two years. I will have to do more digging and see if I can find the source. The point is that while an immediate change is unrealistic for the reasons you describe, getting the trend going in the other direction is infinitely better than doing nothing.
-
Also, as for the red flag bills, as distasteful as it is, it’s not a crime to be a hater. And it’s not a crime to be weird and mysterious. I doubt most red flag bills would pass muster of a court review. That’s one reason crazy people roam the streets everywhere. They’re not considered dangerous until they kill someone. What would stop someone who is anti firearms to call the police on anyone he/she knows owns a firearm under the pretense if a red flag condition? People do that now, when someone is carrying completely legally, some of these anti firearms people call 911 to report a man with a gun to try to intimidate people from carrying legally.
They have been lighting up 911 in FL. They passed a law allowing open carry when fishing or on the way to fishing. People are walking around with handlines and AK47s in areas where open carry wasn't allowed before.
-
Presumably you’ll have to start small: banning all guns from certain areas (except for LEOs). Then you start making those areas, and the number of them, steadily larger. Soon it will become a badge of pride to live in a gun-free area, and then being gun-free is aspirational. It’ll take many years of course. But surely it could be done? Give time for the gun culture attitudes to change in the US.
It sounds a bit like those old Wild West movies where you have to hand in your guns to the sheriff as you enter town.
-
Maybe. But every time I see a gun free zone sign all I can think of is how law abiding people would leave the pistol at home, but the guy that’s going in to kill his ex boss or ex wife will not be deterred by such a sign. Might as well put up a sign, don’t worry about being stopped by a legal carry citizen, we don’t allow them here.
If you could, though, ban “assault rifles” sales, over a period of many years/generations you would have a lot less of them out there, they sort of go the way of the musket, after a few generations. Then you wouldn’t have to hire single men with no family and a death wish to go try to collect them from those that wouldn’t voluntarily surrender them. I honestly think it would take the Army to get all that done, which would be illegal and would likely lead to major civil unrest anyway. Defining assault rifles legally is also problematic, they are so similar to any semi auto rifle used for hunting or target shooting.
Both of my sons own tactical rifles. One is a career Army Officer, who wears a full beard when he is in combat theatre, if you know what I mean, the other is a federal agent who is an Army National Guard Commissioned Officer. Many tactical rifle owners have similar backgrounds. It’s a shame a few idiots are causing all this trouble.
Some of what you call gun culture folks are pretty committed. I don’t see them going vegan and driving Priuses any time soon!
-
As a former career Law Enforcement Officer, I think it would be wonderful if we could snap our fingers and make some or even all types of firearms go away. No one has a firearm, no one needs to protect their self from people with firearms if there aren’t any. However, the genie has been out of the bottle for a long while. How are you going to make someone who is a criminal turn in his firearms? Anyone on here want to volunteer to be the guy to collect all the MS 13 weapons?
When all these criminal people still have their firearms, do you expect other law abiding people not not be able to protect themselves against armed criminals? Are you going to turn otherwise law abiding people into criminals if they balk at turning in their means of protection against armed criminals? Anyone on here going to volunteer to go out to some of the rural counties in say, West Virginia, eastern Washington State, or Alabama and ask Bubba to hand over his AK? The reason some of these guys own their semiautomatic rifles is because the government might some day come for those very rifles.
It’s dream world versus reality.
I am having trouble locating the stat, but my guess is your experience will back it up. In a substantial number of firearm homicides, maybe even a majority, the killer obtained the gun somewhat recently. It seems like it was one or two years. I will have to do more digging and see if I can find the source. The point is that while an immediate change is unrealistic for the reasons you describe, getting the trend going in the other direction is infinitely better than doing nothing.
That’s why they used have a waiting period to purchase firearms. To keep a hothead from picking up a gun on the way to his ex’s house to off her in a fit of rage. That waiting period used to be for all, but now if you pass the National Instant Background System computer query you can pick up the same day. So if you’re not a felon and haven’t been adjudicated as crazy you are good to go. That’s way different than actually being crazy, I might add.
I don’t know about recent shooters and when they got their firearms. Seems like the Vegas shooter was well entrenched into his firearms collection for many years. I think the El Paso shooter just recently got his rifle.
-
I am a former gun owner who decided it wasn't worth the risk when I started a family and now that they are older I could get one again but I have seen what's happening with guns and don't want to get back in. Plus my kids would not be happy with me even though they are young adults and 3 of the 4 are out of the house. They all learned to shoot and respect guns at the range with me. They were exposed and educated even though I didn't have any in the house. But they see them as more often being problems than solutions, as do I now. Anyway, that's where my viewpoint comes from.
Until the gun culture fades, I do want armed LEOs in public spaces where guns are prohibited. It is a viscous cycle of sorts; the more guns out there, the more people feel like they need them for defense and criminals feel like they need them. We are going to need help breaking that cycle. People will worry about a police state though; we would need some serious checks and balances. Life is really freaking complicated.
-
Police state??? For heaven’s sakes, you guys are exasperating! What next? Afraid of an invasion of little green men from Mars so you must have an AK47 down your pants at all times? :)
How often do you guys *actually* use a gun in self-defence?
-
Police state??? For heaven’s sakes, you guys are exasperating! What next? Afraid of an invasion of little green men from Mars so you must have an AK47 down your pants at all times? :)
How often do you guys *actually* use a gun in self-defence?
I am a former gun owner who favors much tighter controls now. I mentioned the "police state" comment because I hear it a lot when I suggest that in places with lots of armed LEO presence, no one else should be allowed to carry. They need to come up with tech that detects firearms in crowds without making everyone step through through a detector. But the idea requires that we be able to place a lot of faith in LEOs and there are still enough problems with bias and corruption to make that difficult. Before any current or former LEOs jump on me about saying that, those problems are far from universal but the incidence is still high enough to warrant mistrust by some groups.
-
Yes, that comment was not aimed at you specifically RTG. I broadly support the positions you have expressed here. I knew that when you mentioned Police State you were referring to the fears of the NRA type fraternity, not you.
And btw for the record, I have been trained to use, and have used, rifles, which is quite unusual amongst the UK population (here, even the vast majority of the police do not carry guns). My father actually competed at the national level.
-
<<Riddle me this EB - who was it that said:
“Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard, don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like.”
I'll give you a hint, he is not a friend of the NRA, and probably not a big fan of DT.">>
Riddle me this, BEAN: why cant you just say what YOU think? no more riddles--ive been quite clear about what i think
the "2nd amendment as check and balance" is laughable nra garbage propaganda
gun control can be well-effected without your claim (deep in the boring riddles) that the 2nd amendment, an important check and balance, would need to be dismantled--you then asked what "other checks and balances" id be ok dismantling---all loaded questions riddles garbage
try just stepping up to the plate and expressing a definitive opinion---scary----puts you out on a limb, but that's what makes for discourse
riddle that!
-
This is my point (in this thread) EB, as I have stated several times.
My POV is that it doesn't seem that we can have meaningful gun legislation without dismantling the 2nd Amendment and I would be reluctant to do that. But maybe that's what's needed...
Contemporary case law tells us that the 2nd Amendment is still relevant today.
BTW, the quote, “Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard, don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like.” was from Alan Dershowitz.
This is not a pro-gun or anti-gun position, it's more a matter of preservation of the Constitution.
-
Police state??? For heaven’s sakes, you guys are exasperating! What next? Afraid of an invasion of little green men from Mars so you must have an AK47 down your pants at all times? :)
How often do you guys *actually* use a gun in self-defence?
Well, a recent example would be the off duty firefighter with a concealed firearm who captured the guy walking around Walmart with a rifle and body armor ....
-
your recent example is a truly rare example--the use of a legal firearm by a civilian to stop a criminal with an illegal firearm is mostly about macho fantasies that never happened
-
Well, a recent example would be the off duty firefighter with a concealed firearm who captured the guy walking around Walmart with a rifle and body armor ....
"Captured" doing something that was perfectly legal there according to their laws...but just with maybe poor timing? Seriously?
Oh what a tangled web we weave....
Prosecutors on Friday charged Andreychenko, of Springfield, with making a terrorist threat, saying he recklessly disregarded the risk of causing a building evacuation by knowingly sowing fear in the wake of the El Paso mass shooting at the same retail chain.
Missouri is an open-carry state. In 2014, state law allowed anyone with a concealed-carry weapon permit to carry a weapon in the open, statewide, overriding local regulations. Starting in 2017, the state allowed individuals to carry concealed weapons without a permit in most locations and most people 19 or older to obtain a concealed carry permit, which can translate to carry rights in other states.
“Missouri protects the right of people to open carry a firearm, but that does not allow an individual to act in a reckless and criminal manner endangering other citizens,” Greene County Prosecuting Attorney Dan Patterson said in a statement, likening Andreychenko’s actions to raising a false fire alarm in a theater.
So what's the "cooling off period" after a mass shooting before you can once again walk into a crowded public area wearing your body armor, carrying a loaded assault rifle, and having other guns strapped to your person in these "yeehaw y'all" states? Lol... :o ;D
-
the walmart "save":
guy1, legally carrying a gun, approaches guy2, who is also legally carrying a gun---gut1 says to guy2 "you look a little crazy and/or criminal to me--give me your gun"
now all these guys running around with guns makes complete sense to me!!!
-
here's another opinion of mine:
Alan Dershowitz is a total POS--i always knew this, but here's a good summary---written recently, so includes the extensive history, along with all of his recent idiocy:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/08/05/alan-dershowitz-devils-advocate
i put zero stock in anything Alan Dershowitz says about anything.
and stay tuned re Alan Dershowitz--he may well get his own lil box here at MCC in NY--bet they "watch" him better
-
the walmart "save":
guy1, legally carrying a gun, approaches guy2, who is also legally carrying a gun---gut1 says to guy2 "you look a little crazy and/or criminal to me--give me your gun"
now all these guys running around with guns makes complete sense to me!!!
But the fact is, "guy 1" was not "legally carrying a gun" - he was in the process of comitting a crime (subsequently arrested for making a terrorist threat).
It would be like saying "guy 1" was legally driving on the busy sidewalk - because he possessed a drivers license.
I understand the point that you are trying to make but it looses validity when you make it at the expense of the truth.
And what is it that you don't like about AD? (I don't regularly read the New Yorker anymore.)
-
well no, bean, youre analogy makes no sense---not even close----
the walmart gunman was doing nil illegal--he was not remotely involved in the commission of a crime
he was observed wheeling a cart around recording video of himself---while clad in body armor, carrying a gun
he didnt express a threat beyond that implied by the gear he was carrying---perfectly legally, in fact
he did not actively point his gun at anyone or verbalize threats or anger
THIS IS ALL LEGAL ACTIVITY AS DEFINED BY MISSOURI LAW----no "crime being committed", at least as defined by Missouri law.
driving onto a pedestrian sidewalk, licensed or not, is illegal all over our country, even in Missouri!
my opinion--it's nuts to have civilians walking around with loaded deadly weapons--guy1 or guy2 or any civilian
i like trained professional law men, who are subject to our democratically enacted laws, enforcing the law, and carrying any weapons that might be required
-
the walmart gunman was doing nil illegal--he was not remotely involved in the commission of a crime
How do you figure?
He's currently charged with a felony and will likely plead guilty and serve a short stint in jail. As a deterrent, the prosecutor will likely want to make this a high-visibility case.
-
your recent example is a truly rare example--the use of a legal firearm by a civilian to stop a criminal with an illegal firearm is mostly about macho fantasies that never happened
I don’t have time to research how often it happens, but I do read about it periodically. So you’re a mind reader, too? And a psychologist? And like to generalize a stereotype that fits your political narrative? Just keep on pretending that it never happens , if your desired narrative suits you. Pretend that CPR trained people don’t save lives once in a while, and that first aid trained people don’t save lives once in a while, too.
-
walmart gunman has been charged with making a terrorist threat, because there was nothing real to charge him with--happens
he has video of himself never ever threatening a flea, which he recorded the entire time, until police took him into custody--
so, like i said your analogy is crap----"driving on (the) busy sidewalk" is a crime--there are laws that specifically forbid this act
walking into a walmart with a shouldered AR, and a holstered sidearm, clad in body armor is completely legal in MO--there are no laws that forbid this act in the state of MO
there are no witnesses who will say that he did other than i describe--that he pointed weapons at noone, and that he did not articulate a threat to anyone
crap analogy--LOL---the problem in MO is the gun laws, and this guy proved it
Dershowitz? read the piece, if you care, and youre not just chomping at the bit for semantic puzzling....
Otherwise keep citing him--not becoming of you tho--maybe read the piece!
-
accidental dupe--pls delete, admin--thx
-
Can someone explain to me which one was the terrorist and which one was the patriot expressing his 2nd amendment rights. Was it the guy with the concealed weapon or the guy with the military weapon?
-
The Walmart gunman is presumably being prosecuted under the “being a complete dickhead in public” law. Even his wife told him he was being an idiot and would get into trouble.
But his actions have raised some interesting points, for sure. I was actually reassured - and a bit surprised (given the arguments here from some who seem to claim to represent the popular view) by the fact that the guy is going to be prosecuted.
How on earth US citizens can be reassured by there being hoards of other US private citizens running around with deadly weapons loaded in public just baffles me. On one hand it seems to signify a great distrust of human nature (that people need guns to protect themselves against others), but on the other it requires considerable trust (e.g. that the other guy with the gun won’t just shoot me in the back).
-
/
-
mind reader, Seldom? nah, but i do read the papers
but maybe you should do a bit more reading? If not time consuming research, like, at least some reading beyond "periodically"--if you want to have a meaningful opinion....
and you really think there's an analogy between a medical first responder and some self-appointed untrained moron hero with a gun?
wow--not sure reading or research will fix that!
-
Can someone explain to me which one was the terrorist and which one was the patriot expressing his 2nd amendment rights. Was it the guy with the concealed weapon or the guy with the military weapon?
Unfortunately for him, that seems to have been Dmitriy N. Andreychenko's point and now he will face up to 4 years in jail. What he did was reckless.
-
walking into a walmart with a shouldered AR, and a holstered sidearm, clad in body armor is completely legal in MO--there are no laws that forbid this act in the state of MO
Apparently there is a law, "making a terrorist threat in the second-degree".
According to one report, "Police say panic ensued and shoppers went scurrying out of the building as Andreychenko allegedly walked around pushing a shopping cart and recording video on his phone."
BTW, I thought my sidewalk analogy was pretty good, sorry it didn't register for you.
-
your recent example is a truly rare example--the use of a legal firearm by a civilian to stop a criminal with an illegal firearm is mostly about macho fantasies that never happened
I don’t have time to research how often it happens, but I do read about it periodically. So you’re a mind reader, too? And a psychologist? And like to generalize a stereotype that fits your political narrative? Just keep on pretending that it never happens , if your desired narrative suits you. Pretend that CPR trained people don’t save lives once in a while, and that first aid trained people don’t save lives once in a while, too.
Here is some research info for you:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/how-the-good-guy-with-a-gun-became-a-deadly-american-fantasy
A bit of it (has links to sources in article):
A reality check
Most gun enthusiasts don’t measure up to the fictional ideal of the steady, righteous and sure shot.
In fact, research has shown that gun-toting independence unleashes much more chaos and carnage than heroism. A 2017 National Bureau of Economic Research study revealed that right-to-carry laws increase, rather than decrease, violent crime. Higher rates of gun ownership is correlated with higher homicide rates. Gun possession is correlated with increased road rage.
There have been times when a civilian with a gun successfully intervened in a shooting, but these instances are rare. Those who carry guns often have their own guns used against them. And a civilian with a gun is more likely to be killed than to kill an attacker.
-
walking into a walmart with a shouldered AR, and a holstered sidearm, clad in body armor is completely legal in MO--there are no laws that forbid this act in the state of MO
Apparently there is a law, "making a terrorist threat in the second-degree".
According to one report, "Police say panic ensued and shoppers went scurrying out of the building as Andreychenko allegedly walked around pushing a shopping cart and recording video on his phone."
BTW, I thought my sidewalk analogy was pretty good, sorry it didn't register for you.
People are panicking when they hear a motorcycle back fire. The point I'm making is that the 2nd amendment arguments are inconsistent. Why is carrying an assault rifle a terrorist act in one instance and not another?
-
Apparently there is a law, "making a terrorist threat in the second-degree".
According to one report, "Police say panic ensued and shoppers went scurrying out of the building as Andreychenko allegedly walked around pushing a shopping cart and recording video on his phone."
BTW, I thought my sidewalk analogy was pretty good, sorry it didn't register for you.
I'm sorry Bean, I should have linked you to the WAPO article (https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/08/10/armed-man-who-sowed-panic-walmart-said-he-was-testing-his-nd-amendment-rights-police-say/?noredirect=on) I quoted, because it wasn't the "panic ensued and shoppers went scurrying out of the building as Andreychenko allegedly walked around pushing a shopping cart and recording video on his phone, it was the Walmart employee who pulled the fire alarm as directed by his supervisor that got people "scurrying out of the building"...
Watching the armed man move down the aisles with a shopping cart, a store manager told an employee to pull the fire alarm to get people out of the store, believing that Andreychenko would open fire. Andreychenko said he, too, left the store at that point, police said. Surveillance footage captures shoppers fleeing.
....including the guy in the body armor w/ AR still hanging from his shoulder.
So no, it wasn't the guy w/ the assault rifle that caused most of the shoppers who didn't even know he was in the store to get them "scurrying out of the building", but rather the store manager who panicked seeing a guy doing something completely legal in the "yeehaw y'all" state of MO who got them all running out the store.
Cracks me up that legally armed guy #2 who actually drew, and aimed his weapon to "capture" legally armed guy #1 ...who never actually touched, raised, much less aimed any of his guns at anyone...yet legally gun-toting, aiming and ready to shoot someone guy #2 is a hero, and legally gun-carrying guy who never touched his weapon is a "terrorist". Only in 'Merica! :D
-
walking into a walmart with a shouldered AR, and a holstered sidearm, clad in body armor is completely legal in MO--there are no laws that forbid this act in the state of MO
Apparently there is a law, "making a terrorist threat in the second-degree".
According to one report, "Police say panic ensued and shoppers went scurrying out of the building as Andreychenko allegedly walked around pushing a shopping cart and recording video on his phone."
BTW, I thought my sidewalk analogy was pretty good, sorry it didn't register for you.
People are panicking when they hear a motorcycle back fire. The point I'm making is that the 2nd amendment arguments are inconsistent. Why is carrying an assault rifle a terrorist act in one instance and not another?
Er, because he didn’t shoot it? In the case if this guy, carrying a rifle through a Walmart just after a highly publicized Walmart shooting, his absolute right to bear arms probably is tempered by the Shouting Fire in a Crowded Threatre concept. It’s a Supreme Court decision regarding the absolute right of free speech.
-
walking into a walmart with a shouldered AR, and a holstered sidearm, clad in body armor is completely legal in MO--there are no laws that forbid this act in the state of MO
Apparently there is a law, "making a terrorist threat in the second-degree".
According to one report, "Police say panic ensued and shoppers went scurrying out of the building as Andreychenko allegedly walked around pushing a shopping cart and recording video on his phone."
BTW, I thought my sidewalk analogy was pretty good, sorry it didn't register for you.
People are panicking when they hear a motorcycle back fire. The point I'm making is that the 2nd amendment arguments are inconsistent. Why is carrying an assault rifle a terrorist act in one instance and not another?
Tom, it really just comes down to intent. In this case, he apparently got the reaction he was looking for.
Whether people were frenzied by Andrechenko, or the related fire alarm, the responsibility falls on Andrechenko. Lucky no one was injured.
I hope we do adopt some meaningful gun legislation, but not at the expense of diminishing our Constitutional rights.
-
mind reader, Seldom? nah, but i do read the papers
but maybe you should do a bit more reading? If not time consuming research, like, at least some reading beyond "periodically"--if you want to have a meaningful opinion....
and you really think there's an analogy between a medical first responder and some self-appointed untrained moron hero with a gun?
wow--not sure reading or research will fix that!
Well, how bout this yes or no scenario then. A couple months ago, a 70 year old guy here in my town was walking on a well used trail here. Unprovoked, and out of nowhere, a crazy guy stabbed him repeatedly in the chest several times, killing him. One of my sons is a commissioned officer in the US Army. (I know that scares you but bear with me.). He has a BS as well as a Masters Degree, and is a Special Operations Command combat vet. (more scary stuff for you). Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, a few other places. He has a good head on his shoulders and knows what to do and how to do it. And he has a concealed carry permit. Do you think the dead stabbed guy wishes my son, or someone like him, was present and armed when he was confronted then attacked? Yes or no.
As an aside, this same son was 10 when he was attacked by a pit bull on a similar trail. (Sorry pit bull lovers). I was off duty and armed and I put one in that’s dogs brain. But I cannot compared this to a civilian being armed because I was an LEO at the time. But my son was happy I was armed while off duty.
I’m sure you’ll come up with some idealogical mumbo jumbo to try to twist this a way to suit your beliefs, but it I’ll be good entertainment.
-
Intent??? Now we need mind-readers to decide who's a terrorist and who is just a 2nd amendment avocate
-
In the MO case, the prosecutor will need to prove that the young man intended to commit the crime that he is charged with. There will be specific elements that the prosecutor will have to prove. The court (likely a jury) will then have to agree whether or not that the Prosecutor has met the burden of proof.
Ordinarily there might not be a case here, but in the wake of the recent shootings, MO will make an example in this instance for sure.
-
mind reader, Seldom? nah, but i do read the papers
but maybe you should do a bit more reading? If not time consuming research, like, at least some reading beyond "periodically"--if you want to have a meaningful opinion....
and you really think there's an analogy between a medical first responder and some self-appointed untrained moron hero with a gun?
wow--not sure reading or research will fix that!
Well, how bout this yes or no scenario then. A couple months ago, a 70 year old guy here in my town was walking on a well used trail here. Unprovoked, and out of nowhere, a crazy guy stabbed him repeatedly in the chest several times, killing him. One of my sons is a commissioned officer in the US Army. (I know that scares you but bear with me.). He has a BS as well as a Masters Degree, and is a Special Operations Command combat vet. (more scary stuff for you). Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, a few other places. He has a good head on his shoulders and knows what to do and how to do it. And he has a concealed carry permit. Do you think the dead stabbed guy wishes my son, or someone like him, was present and armed when he was confronted then attacked? Yes or no.
As an aside, this same son was 10 when he was attacked by a pit bull on a similar trail. (Sorry pit bull lovers). I was off duty and armed and I put one in that’s dogs brain. But I cannot compared this to a civilian being armed because I was an LEO at the time. But my son was happy I was armed while off duty.
I’m sure you’ll come up with some idealogical mumbo jumbo to try to twist this a way to suit your beliefs, but it I’ll be good entertainment.
lotta stabbed guys wish someone shot their stabber---- but your story is useless to the discussion, and that you think it has any relevance confuses me--your son, on the other hand, is an incredible human, and our country is lucky to have capable guys like him protecting us--you shoild be proud him--but, on the other other hand, if you cant see the irrelevance of your little fictions (cant even call them anecdotes), ill pass on commenting further--and you shd be embarrassed of yourself
thank God for our excellent US Military and our law enforcement community which our country benefits from--if you think youve got some monopoly on that, you really are a fool
-
Intent??? Now we need mind-readers to decide who's a terrorist and who is just a 2nd amendment avocate
L O L
well said
fact is the guy broke no laws, as exist on the books---seems maybe the problem is the laws?---doye!!!--like why the eff shd guys be able to legally walk around arm armed with military killing machines
Why not RPG's?--no specificity in the 2nd amendment about which "arms" can be born
so hilarious---untrained guys walking around with guns need to be vigilant about reading the minds and engaging psych diagnoses of the other guys with guns, and get those guys!!--you know: good guys with guns get the bad guys with guns!!---all so we are "protected"
cant make this shit up----cuz it's real
-
fact is the guy broke no laws, as exist on the books---
He has been charged with a felony...
-
charged means he's been charged--in fact, he has been charged---bernie goetz was charged---OJ was charged--i said that my understanding of the situation sums to his not having broken any laws on the books---i am going to be very entertained by this court case---maybe more than having dershowitz looked into, which will finally be happening
you "dont read the new yorker anymore"---read the national review much?
nice lil piece by a conservative prof at berkeley
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/universal-background-check-law-would-not-violate-second-amendment/
the 2nd amendment crap is kinda debunked at this point
rpg's anyone??
-
also, back to the missouri walmart:
what if guy3, who is carrying a ruger security 6 357 mag in stainless with a 4" barrel (gorgeous piece), pulls into the walmart parking lot and observes guy1 with a shouldered AK and a holstered pistol filming himself with with his phone, while an angry guy2 threatens him with a pistol??
what is to prevent guy3 from blowing away guy2? acc to missouri law guy3 can legally shoot/kill guy2 under those circumstances
who's the hero?? who's the criminal??
doesn't matter to the dead guy--who wouldnt be dead if these guys werent walking around carrying various versions of efficient lethal weapons, for no good reason, putting themselves and the general public at risk, is case they do something lethal and dumb--while making an instantaneous lethal decision is a confused stressful moment
everyday life in the world of humans can get angry stressful confused overtired etc etc--mixing guns with humans and everyday life makes no sense
thanks but we dont need another hero
-
Well, how bout this yes or no scenario then. A couple months ago, a 70 year old guy here in my town was walking on a well used trail here. Unprovoked, and out of nowhere, a crazy guy stabbed him repeatedly in the chest several times, killing him. One of my sons is a commissioned officer in the US Army. (I know that scares you but bear with me.). He has a BS as well as a Masters Degree, and is a Special Operations Command combat vet. (more scary stuff for you). Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, a few other places. He has a good head on his shoulders and knows what to do and how to do it. And he has a concealed carry permit. Do you think the dead stabbed guy wishes my son, or someone like him, was present and armed when he was confronted then attacked? Yes or no.
As an aside, this same son was 10 when he was attacked by a pit bull on a similar trail. (Sorry pit bull lovers). I was off duty and armed and I put one in that’s dogs brain. But I cannot compared this to a civilian being armed because I was an LEO at the time. But my son was happy I was armed while off duty.
I’m sure you’ll come up with some idealogical mumbo jumbo to try to twist this a way to suit your beliefs, but it I’ll be good entertainment.
It doesn't require mumbo jumbo, just some basic stats and facts. The most important being your kid wasn't there. With the ridiculous number of weapons in this country, and the ridiculous number of people who think carrying a weapon is going to save them or others despite generally a complete lack of training, no one was there. As a former LEO you know what you're writing is bullshit. The number of crimes that are actively prevented by trained law enforcement, armed, paying attention, and willing to intervene is minuscule--that's why it's always news, and why the NRA pounces on every incident--because it's vanishingly rare. The number of Americans killed by guns is not. 40,000 people killed by shootings each year. How many of those did you prevent?
-
EB, I could understand why you think OJ is innocent and the New Yorker publishes unbiased news, but why defend Andrechenko?
You might feel differently if one of the frenzied had gotten mowed down by a delivery truck as they were making their escape from the store.
As I’ve said before, I hope our law-makers can arrive at some meaningful resolution without butchering the 2nd Amendment.
-
No one is defending Andywhatever, we are pointing out the absurd defence and absurd interpretation of the 2nd amendment
-
your recent example is a truly rare example--the use of a legal firearm by a civilian to stop a criminal with an illegal firearm is mostly about macho fantasies that never happened
I don’t have time to research how often it happens, but I do read about it periodically. So you’re a mind reader, too? And a psychologist? And like to generalize a stereotype that fits your political narrative? Just keep on pretending that it never happens , if your desired narrative suits you. Pretend that CPR trained people don’t save lives once in a while, and that first aid trained people don’t save lives once in a while, too.
Here is some research info for you:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/how-the-good-guy-with-a-gun-became-a-deadly-american-fantasy
A bit of it (has links to sources in article):
A reality check
Most gun enthusiasts don’t measure up to the fictional ideal of the steady, righteous and sure shot.
In fact, research has shown that gun-toting independence unleashes much more chaos and carnage than heroism. A 2017 National Bureau of Economic Research study revealed that right-to-carry laws increase, rather than decrease, violent crime. Higher rates of gun ownership is correlated with higher homicide rates. Gun possession is correlated with increased road rage.
There have been times when a civilian with a gun successfully intervened in a shooting, but these instances are rare. Those who carry guns often have their own guns used against them. And a civilian with a gun is more likely to be killed than to kill an attacker.
Quoting myself as the post seems to have been lost in the shuffle or possibly an answer to the "haven't done research" question was ignored.
Also, since we are telling anecdotal stories, here is what happened to a good guy with a gun:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/04/us/alabama-mall-shooting-autopsy.html
-
Seldom, C'mon... any 4yr old can come up with a completely logical story of a mythological hero to save his teddybear.
No offense to the relatives of the guy on the trail, but I'd sure as hell trade the same number of —knife killing incidents— for similar numbers due to the growing pathology we wave around as a 2nd Amendment 'right'. Gun Nut should be prominent in the DSM-5.
Jim ...in the Army that was smart enough to not let play with our guns.
-
It doesn't require mumbo jumbo, just some basic stats and facts...
40,000 people killed by shootings each year. How many of those did you prevent?
It's ZERO right? ::)
But seriously PB, statistics on prevention are naturally hard to come by.
-
nice lil piece by a conservative prof at berkeley
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/universal-background-check-law-would-not-violate-second-amendment/
I like it. It's a baby step, but a significant one if it can be pulled off.
-
No one is defending Andywhatever, we are pointing out the absurd defence and absurd interpretation of the 2nd amendment
thanks for fielding the latest bean-quizzle, tom, all loaded as usual with misconstrual of my clear writing etc etc
i think OJ was innocent!! perfect, bean--you are so desperate to confuse the issue!!
quizzle on!!!!
-
You did say, "the guy broke no laws, as exist on the books"? And you also used the tired old OJ was charged but not convicted argument? So, I'm not sure what you are whining about.
-
It doesn't require mumbo jumbo, just some basic stats and facts...
40,000 people killed by shootings each year. How many of those did you prevent?
It's ZERO right? ::)
But seriously PB, statistics on prevention are naturally hard to come by.
SeldomeScene is a a former LEO and the father of a extraordinary well trained officer. For him to make this argument, knowing that his son is a rare individual and equate that to the average untrained idiot with a gun is hard for me to understand. The last thing any officer responding to an incident would want is assistance from an armed civilian--they'd be as likely to shoot the officer as the suspect.
Even trained police officers are dangerous in a fraught situation. There was an incident in Portland some years ago when several law officers confronted a man holding a knife to the throat of a girl. They started shooting, and fired in excess of 40 rounds, killing both the assailant and the girl. Which is pretty much what I would expect would happen if the average civilian confronted the situation he described.
Making it a Yes or No question based on outcome, in my opinion, reveals that Seldom Scene knows the argument is nonsense and any detail pulls it apart. Why he would even make it doesn't make sense to me. What thinking human is going to be convinced?
Oh, and Bean. there's lots of data. I just finished reading this: An analysis of the effect of RTC laws on gun violence and use of guns in criminal activity. If the anecdotal text is not convincing just skip to the data. https://www.nber.org/papers/w23510
-
bean--enough of the quizzles
obviously i did not offer that i thought oj was innocent---that you want to harp on this absurd mischaracterization of my comments expresses that you cant effectively address the real issues being discussed here--and are desperate to distract from that--i offered that charges do not indicate laws actually broken or not--in fact, results produced by our courts also often do not indicate clearly whether laws were broken or not--but charges? c'mon---so, read carefully cuz here's the punchline:
your claim of the importance that andychenko was charged is somewhat meaningless to the actual merits of the situation
and i do believe that, as i understand missouri laws on the books, andychenko didnt break the law--in fact, based on my understanding, the hero actually broke laws as exist on the books in MO
you offer nothing on this matter except crap like i think OJ was innocent
quizzle on--doesnt feel like whining to me when i call you out as a fool, whose contribution to discourse here is basically devoid of any real POV
wait i ferreted out a POV from you--another! youve said you think Im a specimen like that you pick up after your dog, now you've said you think im whining--nice adds--atta go!
you should try auto-bean-quizzling--might be youll be receptive to it??
nuther punchline: i think the nra's characterization of the relevance of the 2nd amendment is horseshit here in our country in 2019
-
That’s totally out of context - here is exactly what we said:
EB: jeeze i am a specimen
B: Yes, you certainly are.
B: Which reminds me, I have to follow my dog around the yard later to pick up a specimen for her vet visit. ;D
If anything, I was being insensitive to my dog. Jeeze...
-
i think you should auto-quizzle at this point, bean--maybe youll enjoy it best when you do it to yourself--when master-baiting fails, youre left to.......or maybe there's your poor dog!
have at it!
-
i think you should auto-quizzle at this point, bean--maybe youll enjoy it best when you do it to yourself--when master-baiting fails, youre left to.......or maybe there's your poor dog!
have at it!
Not sure what that means exactly, but I’m sure it’s very funny.
-
Is this the point where someone usually says “C’mon please play nice, will ya, guys”?
It sounds to an outsider like me that the words of the US constitution are held in the same regard as a religious document. And there are the same issues as you find with a religious document: people will project onto those words whatever meaning best justifies their desires and actions.
But, actually, isn’t the constitution just a legal agreement between the people and the government? And like any legal agreement, sometimes it needs updating so that it can take into account new circumstances and still serve the public’s best interests.
The UK doesn’t have a single written constitution. Instead we have a bucketload of laws and individual documents which together act as an “unwritten constitution”. So none of these individual pieces of law have achieved the status of a religious document, like the US constitution seems to have done. They are constantly evolving. So it is easy for us to tweak them as required. Which may be why we aren’t running around shooting ourselves and others: we haven’t got stuck in a moment of time, at least as regards firearms. (And NO I am not claiming that we are “better” - we have our own issues to deal with - I am only referring to the narrow topic of gun ownership and use.)
-
Good stuff A-10, we do have the Magna Carta (and much more) in common ;D
https://youtu.be/7xo4tUMdAMw
-
Yes, well, the Magna Carta is a good example of how you take the best principles of a constitution and update it repeatedly over time, so that it keeps serving its purpose. I would imagine that the majority of US citizens would sympathise with a little updating of the wording of the second amendment right now. At the moment it reads like something that was copied straight out of the Magna Carta :)
Maybe it’s because the US (as it currently is) is such a young country that there might be some fetishisation of these relatively young documents. I remember a couple of decades ago driving on Oahu and seeing a sign that said “welcome to the historic town of Haleiwa, 50 years old” or somesuch. I thought “historic?”. At that time back in the UK I was living in a house that was built in 1850 and had trees in my garden that were older than 50 years. The church I used to attend was built in 1300. So I guess it is all perspective. If your government (and country) is old then maybe you are more used to the concept that some things that were great historically need to be left behind in order for your country and government to progress.
-
...some things that were great historically need to be left behind in order for your country and government to progress.
You mean like Monarchy ;D
Just joining the thread and read the last few comments. Seems like a comic relief
so I might as well throw some of my garbage out here
-
...some things that were great historically need to be left behind in order for your country and government to progress.
You mean like Monarchy ;D
Just joining the thread and read the last few comments. Seems like a comic relief
so I might as well throw some of my garbage out here
Well that’s a good example, actually. The monarchy really have only a ceremonial role in the UK. In fact we are in a panic right now because Brexit might end up dragging the Queen into it (for reasons far too complex to go into) so we are desperately trying to change parliamentary procedure now to avoid it.
Mostly the royal family are just for the tourists. I walk past Buckingham Palace in my way to work, and every day there are hoards of US tourists there... and the Royals are handy when Trump comes over. We can use them to keep him away from Parliament.
-
The page does read like a script straight out of Idiocracy.
A10, not to be rude, I dont even know you. But you seriously are so obtuse its actually comical. The US stole the Hawaiian nation out from under them not much more than 50 years ago. Our first world goals of stealing their country in order to usurp several other countries would maybe stop and make you and think.
and if you did some research you would find we are most certainly under the rule of the magna charta, do you believe that was actually a benevolent action to free the serfs from the heavy hands of monarchs? look into the magna charts, The City, The Rothchilds and Citizen United. then look into birth certificates and social security numbers. we are still all slaves to the system that has created Fiat money created out of thin air, backed by thin air, taxed under duress, fractional reserve banking and all through private families. look into swift and bis, ask yourself why Iran is all of the sudden the bad guy, or Iraq or Libya. but but the WMD, yeah please. why is the poppy fields booming in Afghanistan?
theres so much tied into the gun control and the actual topic, propaganda of the current allopathic medical boondoggle, its beyond disappointing nobody here sees that this is all tied together. oh well, keep surfing
-
...I walk past Buckingham Palace in my way to work, and every day there are hoards of US tourists there... and the Royals are handy when Trump comes over...
I think you got it backwards. Those tourists are there for the off chance they'll meet Trump ;D
They do it here in front of the White House as well.
I think most US citizens believe your Monarchy is as obsolete as the UK compared to what it once was. When I say most I mean the US citizens who didn't vote Trump if we are to believe mainstream media.
Don't quote me on that outside the context of this thread though, I did say I have some garbage to dump. Not sure you are aware but garbage disposal can be very expensive in some places in the US. I finally found a cheap opportunity and I'm taking it ;)
-
The page does read like a script straight out of Idiocracy.
A10, not to be rude, I dont even know you. But you seriously are so obtuse its actually comical. The US stole the Hawaiian nation out from under them not much more than 50 years ago. Our first world goals of stealing their country in order to usurp several other countries would maybe stop and make you and think.
and if you did some research you would find we are most certainly under the rule of the magna charta, do you believe that was actually a benevolent action to free the serfs from the heavy hands of monarchs? look into the magna charts, The City, The Rothchilds and Citizen United. then look into birth certificates and social security numbers. we are still all slaves to the system that has created Fiat money created out of thin air, backed by thin air, taxed under duress, fractional reserve banking and all through private families. look into swift and bis, ask yourself why Iran is all of the sudden the bad guy, or Iraq or Libya. but but the WMD, yeah please. why is the poppy fields booming in Afghanistan?
theres so much tied into the gun control and the actual topic, propaganda of the current allopathic medical boondoggle, its beyond disappointing nobody here sees that this is all tied together. oh well, keep surfing
Undoubtedly, you are the only one in the entire world that sees it all clearly.
So, what is your solution?
-
The NRA supporters here are gonna love this opinion piece:
https://news.sky.com/story/sky-views-the-us-a-country-where-guns-take-priority-over-kids-education-11787011
Btw I saw the film “The Big Hack” yesterday. In it Brittany Kaiser expressed the opinion that she was afraid for the future of the US because politics had become so divided that people could no longer see each other’s point of view, so no discussions could be fruitful - so therefore nothing ever gets done: deadlock.
There were some interesting statistics too. Such as that Trump won because of the votes of a tiny number of “persuadable” voters in key swing states - 70,000 of them I think they said.
We’ve got a similar situation in the UK with Brexit, where if only 1 in 50 voters had changed their mind we wouldn’t be doing it. But if that 70k statistic is true, then you’ve got it even worse than we have.
The unspoken thrust of the film was that this stasis has been caused by the weaponisation of social media, and the use of “military-grade” propaganda techniques, designed for covert operations in other countries by the UK and US, on home soil. And I guess reading threads like this on here you can see what Brittany Kaiser was referring to. It is clear that the various contributors (perhaps including me) are being fed a pretty heavy-duty diet of propaganda, and that differs greatly from one person to another.
It was good in the film to see the architect of the “crooked Hillary” campaign to take ownership of it (only because he was covertly filmed of course). How anyone could really think that Clinton, unloveable though she may be, is more crooked than Trump, is beyond me. But I guess maybe they just figure that the ends justify the means.
Anyway, I’m sure that there are a few old guys with guns on this forum who would just love to give up their time to march around their local schools brandishing their weapon, living out their fantasy of being Clint Eastwood in Gran Torino as their final days approach. Could be risky with the increase in Alzheimer’s these days though...
-
thx for the mention A--seems a film we shd see in these great times.............
-
thx for the mention A--seems a film we shd see in these great times.............
Yeah and I apologise in advance for the fact that it was a British company that did this wicked thing to you. They did it to us too. It’s shocking, actually, that these methods were developed for communications warfare on other countries (and used to devastating effect in them, as the film describes) but then were permitted to be used in the US and the UK. As a result, the world is a much more dangerous place, and the international influence of the US and UK have been greatly diminished.
This is really serious stuff. Unfortunately the film probably won’t be watched by those who need to see it most. But it is very shocking, and it makes you think that we are all truly f**ked.
-
I have a more optimistic view of the US, sorry to be such a downer for you...
-
I have a more optimistic view of the US, sorry to be such a downer for you...
Why?
Maybe you could try to be less gnomic, for those of us of lesser intellect?
-
the activities of cambridge analytica and their ilk should frighten people who live in and care about their democracies, all over the world
not something we should have our heads in the sand about.....
much as putin's nuclear-reactor-powered cruise missile, and the affront it is to our country, concerns me---data espionage is equally important
welcome to national defense 2019
-
also, typo, A---it's "The Great Hack", and it covers data espionage and its importance to national defense well.....
-
also, typo, A---it's "The Great Hack", and it covers data espionage and its importance to national defense well.....
Yes, apologies, it is indeed The Great Hack.
It starts a bit slowly, and the main presenter is annoyingly pretentious, but it certainly gets going after a while. Scary stuff.
-
A heartwarming story, for once:
El Paso shooting: Man shocked as hundreds attend wife's funeral https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49380041