12-17-2009, 02:58 PM
|
#31
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: prick up your ears
Posts: 20,553
|
Quote:
Philboid Studge wrote
cancer patients don't have to pay anything at all
|
those lucky socialist bastards
You can always turn tricks for a few extra bucks. If looks are an issue, there's the glory hole option, but don't expect more than ... tips.
~ Philiboid Studge
|
|
|
12-17-2009, 03:37 PM
|
#32
|
Guest
|
Quote:
Philboid Studge wrote
So you'd prefer the French system then? It's basically Medicare for everybody. The 90% you speak of is the supplemental insurance (similar to Medigap -- Sorry, I know you don't understand what these funny words mean); it's not that French health care is 90% privately funded -- far from it. Funny thing, in France, the sicker you get, the less you pay in health costs. Chronic diseases are reimbursed at 100% and cancer patients don't have to pay anything at all. (And their private supplemental insurance has absolutely nothing to do with that.)
|
I understand that most of their care is paid for by the state. My point was that, even then, most people still choose to buy extra coverage. If the government system did everything to everyone's satisfaction, there would be no demand for the supplemental insurance.
It is impossible to design a healthcare program (or anything else) that would satisfy everyone. In the free market, that isn't a problem. People pay for what they want and no time gets wasted arguing over the rules.
|
|
|
12-17-2009, 04:08 PM
|
#33
|
Guest
|
Quote:
nkb wrote
What does any of this have to do with whether RPGs should be legalized? According to you, it would be an infringement on personal freedom to restrict ownership of any weapon. Do you think all weapons should be legal to own?
|
Legal or not, people will always find ways to buy weapons. Fortunately, most people are reluctant to engage in violence and the really destructive weapons are out of the price range of most individuals.
Where did I say that people should be allowed to own any weapon? I've only been saying that the laws we have don't work very well. Even if there were no laws at all concerning weapon ownership, I doubt there would be an RPG in every home.
Quote:
nkb wrote
Now you're blaming me for your retarded analogies? Your ludicrous examples were made before I ever involved myself in the discussion.
|
Not so. You never answered why there isn't a rash of medieval siege warfare despite the lack of trebuchet control laws.
Would you like to buy a rock that keeps tigers away?
Quote:
nkb wrote
Point out to us which country you consider to be the best. Where is the free market and libertarianism being practiced to your satisfaction?
|
I like the US a lot, although Switzerland has an edge, particularly with their neutrality. How is this germane to the present discussion? Are you suggesting I move?
Quote:
nkb wrote
You put up the chart after I gave an example of two industrialized nations that I knew had high gun ownership, compared to the rest, while enforcing effective gun control, without the disproportionate gun violence that we have here.
What else do you need? How would it be useful for me to list every country that has gun control?
|
No, you basically said (forgive me for paraphrasing) "here are two countries with guns which have less gun violence than the US. Explain that, jackass." My response, I believe, was that US gun laws are useless, which is is a fair assessment considering the massive amount of gun legislation.
[
Quote:
nkb wrote
Pray tell, what do you base this assessment on? Pulled out of your ass like all your other ideas?
|
It's quite simple, my dear shitpicker. The gun ownership rate in the US is 35%; Finland's is 25%. So there are about 40% (.35/.25 = 1.4) more guns in the US than Finland. As the astute Choobus pointed out, there's a pretty good correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths. So even if we could enact and enforce Finnish gun laws perfectly, the gun death rate would still be higher simply because there would be more guns.
Easy, eh?
[
Quote:
nkb wrote
Compared to the other industrialized nations, our gun control laws are laughable.
As mentioned, our gun control laws are useless, mainly due to getting watered down by the gun lobby before having any chance at passing. But, that wasn't your point. You made a blanket statement that gun laws are unenforceable, which I have shown to be incorrect, since it works quite well in the majority of developed countries.
So, are you proposing to get rid of all the laws? Do you even have a concept of what you are proposing, apart from some half-assed arguments that would embarass a high school freshman doing a social studies report.
|
The laws are ineffective, but there certainly are a lot of them and a lot of money gets spent on enforcing them. I don't think there's much that can be done at the federal level to enforce gun control because individual states can ignore the federal laws. It's the same problem with medicinal marijuana. As I said before, drug laws and gun laws work equally well.
[
Quote:
nkb wrote
This has to be some of the most shallow thinking displayed by you on this forum.
|
So now you are the official rater of forum shallowness? Forum Shogun Brick orders you to commit seppuku before the Hour of the Horse for your insolence.
|
|
|
12-17-2009, 04:38 PM
|
#34
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 4,260
|
Quote:
Another brick in the wall wrote
I understand that most of their care is paid for by the state. My point was that, even then, most people still choose to buy extra coverage. If the government system did everything to everyone's satisfaction, there would be no demand for the supplemental insurance.
|
Of course, this kind of assumes that the government system tries to do everything. In Canada, something like 65% of people have private health insurance, but this doesn't necessarily indicate a failure on the part of the public system, since there is no overlap in the things covered by the public (e.g., brain surgery) and private spheres (e.g., cosmetic surgery, optometry, dentristry, etc). Using the purchasing of one to infer the quality of the other would be fallacious.
Quote:
brick wrote
It is impossible to design a healthcare program (or anything else) that would satisfy everyone.
|
Agreed.
Quote:
brick wrote
In the free market, that isn't a problem. People pay for what they want and no time gets wasted arguing over the rules.
|
Which is why everyone loves the US system and no one is attempting to reform it.
Having a multi-payer system seems inherently more expensive that other methods, with the cause being, of all things, the administrative costs of having so many parties interacting.
"When science was in its infancy, religion tried to strangle it in its cradle." - Robert G. Ingersoll
|
|
|
12-18-2009, 11:07 AM
|
#35
|
He who walks among the theists
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Big D
Posts: 12,119
|
Quote:
Another brick in the wall wrote
Legal or not, people will always find ways to buy weapons. Fortunately, most people are reluctant to engage in violence and the really destructive weapons are out of the price range of most individuals.
|
So, how is that different from other countries that have gun control, and it appears to be effective in terms of reduction of gun violence?
Quote:
Another brick in the wall wrote
Where did I say that people should be allowed to own any weapon?
|
If you're really all about freedom, wy would you restrict any weapon?
Quote:
Another brick in the wall wrote
I've only been saying that the laws we have don't work very well.
|
I agree with you. The laws we have are diluted shells of what these laws started out as, because the gun lobby and the 2nd amendment lobby has too much say.
Quote:
Another brick in the wall wrote
Even if there were no laws at all concerning weapon ownership, I doubt there would be an RPG in every home.
|
I agree. No shit! But, would there be more?
Quote:
Another brick in the wall wrote
Not so. You never answered why there isn't a rash of medieval siege warfare despite the lack of trebuchet control laws.
|
Oh, I thought you had figured out by now that this analogy was so retarded that I wasn't even addressing it. Apparently, you still seem to think you made some sort of valid point.
There is no law against trebuchets, because it is, in no way, a risk to society. Nobody, criminal or otherwise, would own one, except for some sort of medieval re-enactment. Nobody would be able to use a trebuchet to realistically threaten someone, or use it in the commitment of a crime.
Quote:
Another brick in the wall wrote
Would you like to buy a rock that keeps tigers away?
|
What?
Quote:
Another brick in the wall wrote
I like the US a lot, although Switzerland has an edge, particularly with their neutrality.
|
So, you're ok with the levels of gun violence in this country, except that you advocate even less gun control?
Quote:
Another brick in the wall wrote
How is this germane to the present discussion? Are you suggesting I move?
|
I was curious whether you had an ideal society as an example, where the laws are more to your liking. Why would I suggest moving? Do you get that a lot from your neighbors?
Quote:
Another brick in the wall wrote
No, you basically said (forgive me for paraphrasing) "here are two countries with guns which have less gun violence than the US. Explain that, jackass." My response, I believe, was that US gun laws are useless, which is is a fair assessment considering the massive amount of gun legislation.
|
And I agree.
Quote:
Another brick in the wall wrote
It's quite simple, my dear shitpicker. The gun ownership rate in the US is 35%; Finland's is 25%. So there are about 40% (.35/.25 = 1.4) more guns in the US than Finland. As the astute Choobus pointed out, there's a pretty good correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths. So even if we could enact and enforce Finnish gun laws perfectly, the gun death rate would still be higher simply because there would be more guns.
|
You have a knack for stating blatantly obvious points, then drawing retarded conclusions.
But, in this case, it was your ambiguous assertion that I had an issue with. It sounded like you were saying that there would be no impact on our gun violence, even with stricter laws.
Quote:
Another brick in the wall wrote
The laws are ineffective, but there certainly are a lot of them and a lot of money gets spent on enforcing them. I don't think there's much that can be done at the federal level to enforce gun control because individual states can ignore the federal laws.
|
Really? That's news to me. Can you give some examples?
Quote:
Another brick in the wall wrote
So now you are the official rater of forum shallowness?
|
Not official, but I call it when it's this obvious.
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."
George Bernard Shaw
|
|
|
12-18-2009, 12:08 PM
|
#36
|
Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: OooOooOOOhio.
Posts: 220
|
I think ABITW just contradicted himself. Multiple times. Besides that, has anyone at all considered that the U.S. is a virtual "war occurring within the country" virgin? How many can claim to have seen people caught up in gunfire? Their bodies ripped in half by grenades? Or even know a relative who's witnessed this? Anyone? No? The reason gun control works in most of Europe is because the a good majority of the population can claim that, and those countries and cultures are all much older than our own. They have symbols of pain and bloodshed everywhere compared to us, and it reminds them of the pain and destruction that weapons can readily cause. That, I think, is the major reason why gun laws work so well over there. It's not laws that generally keep people in line, but memories.
Irreligious:
Quote:
At some point, folks without the stomach for bitter discord will decide to throw in the towel while others will commence slapping each other with it.
|
|
|
|
12-18-2009, 12:16 PM
|
#37
|
Guest
|
Quote:
nkb wrote
So, how is that different from other countries that have gun control, and it appears to be effective in terms of reduction of gun violence?
If you're really all about freedom, wy would you restrict any weapon?
|
Even there were no restrictions at all, violence would still be low. I don't think it's neccessary to have many restrictions on weapons because:
1) Criminals will find ways to buy them anyway.
2) The really dangerous ones are too expensive for most people or require too much expertise to use.
3) The laws cost money to enforce and create a false sense of safety.
4) Occassionally, the laws are used to harrass innocent people. See the Ruby Ridge incident for details.
Quote:
nkb wrote
I agree with you. The laws we have are diluted shells of what these laws started out as, because the gun lobby and the 2nd amendment lobby has too much say.
|
Huh? Most of the current gun laws date to the 60s, except the one banning submachine guns that came on the books during Prohibition (another legal failure worth examining).
The gun lobby exists because many Americans believe people should be free to own guns. In a democracy, the laws should reflect what the people think. So what's so awful about the gun lobby? They're playing the same game everyone plays: change the rules to what you want.
Quote:
nkb wrote
I agree. No shit! But, would there be more?
|
Most likely not. People are afraid of violence (which is perfectly sensible) and that more than anything else keeps our lives peaceful.
Quote:
nkb wrote
Oh, I thought you had figured out by now that this analogy was so retarded that I wasn't even addressing it. Apparently, you still seem to think you made some sort of valid point.
There is no law against trebuchets, because it is, in no way, a risk to society. Nobody, criminal or otherwise, would own one, except for some sort of medieval re-enactment. Nobody would be able to use a trebuchet to realistically threaten someone, or use it in the commitment of a crime.
|
Very good, nkb, you figured it out. The odds of anyone using a trebuchet to commit a crime are remote in the extreme and so there is no point in passing a law against it. Now, ask yourself: when was the last time you heard about someone trying to rob a 711 with an RPG? Can we attribute this to the effectiveness of RPG laws?
Quote:
nkb wrote
What?
|
I'm saying laws against RPGs decrease RPG crime in the same way the anti-tiger rock keeps tigers away. They work because there's very little risk of either.
Quote:
nkb wrote
So, you're ok with the levels of gun violence in this country, except that you advocate even less gun control?
|
I don't see more laws as a solution to the gun violence problem because it's been tried already and it hasn't worked. I don't think increasing or decreasing the laws would make much difference either way.
Quote:
nkb wrote
I was curious whether you had an ideal society as an example, where the laws are more to your liking. Why would I suggest moving? Do you get that a lot from your neighbors?
|
I had neighbors, but they were annoying so I shot them all.
Quote:
nkb wrote
You have a knack for stating blatantly obvious points, then drawing retarded conclusions.
But, in this case, it was your ambiguous assertion that I had an issue with. It sounded like you were saying that there would be no impact on our gun violence, even with stricter laws.
|
Now do you see why I asked if you had a reading comprehension problem?
Quote:
nkb wrote
Really? That's news to me. Can you give some examples?
|
Let's compare Texas with Massachussetts
See the differences?
|
|
|
12-18-2009, 02:08 PM
|
#38
|
He who walks among the theists
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Big D
Posts: 12,119
|
Quote:
Another brick in the wall wrote
Even there were no restrictions at all, violence would still be low.
|
Let's ignore the fact that violence is not low, would you care to back that up with something other than your wishful thinking?
Quote:
Another brick in the wall wrote
I don't think it's neccessary to have many restrictions on weapons because:
1) Criminals will find ways to buy them anyway.
|
Yet, there is less gun-related crime in Europe. I wonder why the criminals over there aren't buying the guns that they can easily get anyway.
Quote:
Another brick in the wall wrote
2) The really dangerous ones are too expensive for most people or require too much expertise to use.
|
So we would use the "let's hope they're too poor or too stupid to use a dangerous weapon" approach?
Quote:
Another brick in the wall wrote
3) The laws cost money to enforce and create a false sense of safety.
|
Right, repeal all the laws. People still get murdered and raped, and we are expending money on enforcing those laws, and creating a false sense of security. Brilliant!
Quote:
Another brick in the wall wrote
4) Occassionally, the laws are used to harrass innocent people. See the Ruby Ridge incident for details.
|
Occasionally, traffic laws are used to harass innocent people. Are we getting rid of those too? You're really big on anecdotal evidence, aren't you? Are you and Lily close?
Quote:
Another brick in the wall wrote
Huh? Most of the current gun laws date to the 60s, except the one banning submachine guns that came on the books during Prohibition (another legal failure worth examining).
|
Not sure what relevance that has, but apparently you missed some much-debated laws that were passed in the mid-90s.
Quote:
Another brick in the wall wrote
The gun lobby exists because many Americans believe people should be free to own guns. In a democracy, the laws should reflect what the people think.
|
You should have a cape to go along with your Master of the Obvious outfit.
Quote:
Another brick in the wall wrote
So what's so awful about the gun lobby? They're playing the same game everyone plays: change the rules to what you want.
|
Are you saying that I can't disagree with their position? Should I give NAMBLA a pass too, because they want to be able to fuck little boys in the ass without going to jail?
Quote:
Another brick in the wall wrote
Most likely not. People are afraid of violence (which is perfectly sensible) and that more than anything else keeps our lives peaceful.
|
The fear of violence is what keeps us safe? ...
Quote:
Another brick in the wall wrote
Very good, nkb, you figured it out. The odds of anyone using a trebuchet to commit a crime are remote in the extreme and so there is no point in passing a law against it.
|
And I have the reading comprehension problem?
The reason there is no law regarding trebuchets is the same as carrying overcooked cauliflower: they're not inherently dangerous.
Quote:
Another brick in the wall wrote
Now, ask yourself: when was the last time you heard about someone trying to rob a 711 with an RPG? Can we attribute this to the effectiveness of RPG laws?
|
Because it is not practical to use an RPG for a robbery, that means we shouldn't worry about people getting their hands on them?
Quote:
Another brick in the wall wrote
I'm saying laws against RPGs decrease RPG crime in the same way the anti-tiger rock keeps tigers away. They work because there's very little risk of either.
|
You're not listening to me, are you? Didn't I tell you to lay off the asinine analogies? Can I call you Another Lily in the Wall?
Quote:
Another brick in the wall wrote
I don't see more laws as a solution to the gun violence problem because it's been tried already and it hasn't worked. I don't think increasing or decreasing the laws would make much difference either way.
|
And yet, no amount of handwaving has explained why there is far less gun violence in Western Europe, other than much more restrictive gun laws.
The facts don't support your conclusion.
Quote:
Another brick in the wall wrote
Now do you see why I asked if you had a reading comprehension problem?
|
Your poor communication skills are not a reading comprehension problem on my part.
Quote:
Another brick in the wall wrote
|
Yes, I do. Do you think it's news to me that states have different laws? What does this have to do with states ignoring federal laws?
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."
George Bernard Shaw
|
|
|
12-18-2009, 03:08 PM
|
#39
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: prick up your ears
Posts: 20,553
|
This is like watching a puppy being trained not to shit in the house.
You can always turn tricks for a few extra bucks. If looks are an issue, there's the glory hole option, but don't expect more than ... tips.
~ Philiboid Studge
|
|
|
12-18-2009, 04:30 PM
|
#40
|
Guest
|
Quote:
nkb wrote
Let's ignore the fact that violence is not low, would you care to back that up with something other than your wishful thinking?
|
Colombia has the highest per capita murder rate in the world (0.62 per 1,000 residents). Even in exceptionally dangerous societies, the odds of being killed by another person are low.
Murder is not a leading cause of death in the world.
Remember what I said earlier about how people generally avoid violence?
Quote:
nkb wrote
Yet, there is less gun-related crime in Europe. I wonder why the criminals over there aren't buying the guns that they can easily get anyway.
|
The key word there is "less." It still happens.
Since there are fewer guns in Europe, there are fewer gun deaths. I presume you can follow that line of reasoning. The key question is: why are there fewer guns in Europe? Is it because of the law? Europe has lots of gun laws; the US has lots of gun laws. The gun death rate is much higher in the US. It seems then that relative prevalence of guns has a much stronger effect on the gun death rate than the law.
Look at it this way: suppose Dennis Kucinich somehow became Governor of Texas. By another miracle, he manages to get that state to adopt UK gun control laws.
Which of these do you think would be the most likely outcome:
A) Texans would enthusiatically adopt the new laws leading to a sharp decline in gun deaths.
Or
B) Texans would ignore the new laws in droves and the gun death rate will remain unchanged.
European gun lawss work because most Europeans obey them. Most would not want to own a gun even if it were legal. In the US, we have a different situation, to say the least.
Quote:
nkb wrote
So we would use the "let's hope they're too poor or too stupid to use a dangerous weapon" approach?
|
I think Penn Jillette said it best: "You can't stop insane people from doing insane things with insane laws. It's insane."
I don't know what the Federal government can do, if anything, to reduce homicide rates.
Quote:
nkb wrote
Right, repeal all the laws. People still get murdered and raped, and we are expending money on enforcing those laws, and creating a false sense of security. Brilliant!
Occasionally, traffic laws are used to harass innocent people. Are we getting rid of those too?
|
I do not recall calling for the repeal of all laws. If my specialty is the strawman, yours is the slippery slope. Oh right, since I think ineffective laws should be repealed, I must obviously favor the abolition of all laws.
At Ruby Ridge, efforts to enforce a ban on sawed-off shotguns lead to the deaths of 6 people, but I guess we shouldn't criticize law enforcement merely because they shot some folks who didn't do anything wrong.
Quote:
nkb wrote
Not sure what relevance that has, but apparently you missed some much-debated laws that were passed in the mid-90s.
|
Let's take the Assualt Weapons Ban as an example. It made no sense (banning semiautomatic guns because they look like assault rifles?), was amended or voided by several states, and was later repealed all together. Bit of a pointless exercise if you ask me.
Quote:
nkb wrote
Are you saying that I can't disagree with their position? Should I give NAMBLA a pass too, because they want to be able to fuck little boys in the ass without going to jail?
|
Yes, because owning a gun is the exact moral equivalent of pedophilia. Wow, you must of graduated from the top of your class at law school.
Quote:
nkb wrote
The reason there is no law regarding trebuchets is the same as carrying overcooked cauliflower: they're not inherently dangerous.
|
Oh, c'mon. Cauliflower are cheap and easy to get; trebuchets, not so much. Funny how you ignored that more relevant parallel.
Quote:
nkb wrote
Because it is not practical to use an RPG for a robbery, that means we shouldn't worry about people getting their hands on them?
|
You seem to have a great deal of difficulty grasping this point, so I'll make it easier for you. When was the last time you heard of an RPG being used to commit any kind of crime? How about flamethrowers or heavy machine guns? Could it be perhaps the reason they are not used has little to do with the law and a lot to do with the fact the guns are easier to get and easier to conceal?
Quote:
nkb wrote
You're not listening to me, are you? Didn't I tell you to lay off the asinine analogies?
|
Stop being a condescending douchebag and you got a deal.
Quote:
nkb wrote
And yet, no amount of handwaving has explained why there is far less gun violence in Western Europe, other than much more restrictive gun laws.
The facts don't support your conclusion.
|
There are fewer guns in Europe, so there is less gun violence. That might have more to do with it. Europeans and Americans are not the same. Gun ownership has much more of a cultural basis in the US. How is the law going to change that?
Quote:
nkb wrote
Yes, I do. Do you think it's news to me that states have different laws? What does this have to do with states ignoring federal laws?
|
You said earlier that local gun bans are worthless. Well guess what? If states can ignore federal gun laws with impunity, those law effectively become local bans.
|
|
|
12-18-2009, 06:46 PM
|
#41
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 23,211
|
Quote:
Philboid Studge wrote
Why not have similar licensing as is required for driving an automobile? Individual states can set their own standards, but they still have to conform to some national threshold of proficiency. Make gun owners also buy liability insurance, just as automobiles must be insured. The infrastructure is in place -- it can all be done at the DMV (as part of the test of a potential gun owner's stability: if he goes postal and shoots an insolent clerk, he won't be licensed.)
Should tax payers pay for all that? Why no, only gun owners should.
|
Right on every point. It might be interesting to apply the same method to licensing and insuring parenthood.
"Those who most loudly proclaim their honesty are least likely to possess it."
"Atheism: rejecting all absurdity." S.H.
"Reality, the God alternative"
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:58 AM.
|