Jump to content
Would you be willing to accept the Swiss system? An internet search of the Swiss system:
1-companies can't profit from providing basic coverage, only supplemental plans.
2-all companies are required to offer basic coverage
3-premiums over 8% of personal income are subsidized by the government
4-Max yearly co-pay is roughly $2,000
5-everyone must have coverage.
Would you apply the same logic to policemen, fire fighters, teachers, health care workers and other service providers? I suspect not.
Listen to the callers responding to AM radio, read the comments on AOL. I don't care if they hate-I have no label, and whether they choose to be "civil" or not is their choice. I simple point out they seem to be very angry and have a lot of negativity. Is that a better word. I also never said I disagree with what they said. Some made sense to me, some didn't……..and for all you know I'm referring to Mike and Mike on ESPN radio….. sheessssh
George- So true. Starting with a conclusion then building a case for it is never a good idea. I was thinking about who/what wolud be impartial and knowledgeable in such a heated topic. My vote for 1 participant would be Colin Powell. A man of intelligence and honor that knows something about the good and the bad various weapons can do.
Brian-I'm not sure what broad brush you are referring to. If I am using it, it sure isn't to the profit Coulter is. If you are referencing my comment about AM talk radio, pls reread. I stated I don't know the relationship between fear/hate and gun ownership. I also did not state what political affiliation, if any, the radio host stated or displayed. I simply said they promote hate and fear seem to be very good at it. Again, pls reread.
George-That's why my post says forget the CDC. Just get anybody that will be as unbiased as possible. I don't have the inherent distrust of the Feds that a lot of folks have. Or should I say, I don't distrust them any more than I distrust anyone/thing else. My point is…… a business or an individual would not try to "solve" a problem without first identifying is it a problem? What makes it a problem? What dynamics are involved? Is there a solution? Is the solution realistic?….among other questions. This shooting from the hip-background checks, etc-are simply feel good actions that distract from any attempt to really assess, identify and resolve the gun violence issue. (if it needs resolution)
Brian-so that's where Karl Rove got that? I think both sides are guilty of that philosophy. The science re: climate change isn't settled yet is a good righty one……(I prefer ecological destruction over climate change, anyway) I don't know about the effects of fear on gun ownership, but I do know AM talk radio sure promotes fear/hate. I listen to it between Meeker and Rifle just for kicks and giggles and all they talk about is what folks should be afraid of and/or hate. Listening to the folks that call in, I would say those radio host are pretty effective.
Dan-I'm not sure other countries have background checks re: weapon ownership, esp. where ownership is considered a constitutional right. That makes any comparison of effectiveness sketchy at best. Why not try it? Because it distracts from addressing the issue (if it is one) in an effective, problem solving way. Increased penalties have never deterred any other crimes, why would they work here. In fact, when has prohibiting anything that the public wants ever worked in America?
Jeff-sonewhere over the last few years gun violence was identified (by whom????) as a health issue-thus the CDC. My health insurance began asking about the possession of a weapon in the house abt 10 yrs ago or so. They felt this increased my chances of needing their services and considered it a risk factor. Forget about the CDC. The only reason I bring it up is they are the entity tasked with reseaching health issues in the US. Let's get anybody (that can be as impartial as possible) to look at the dynamics of America's relationship with guns and gun violence. Until we understand why something of this magnitude is happening, any attempt to "resolve" it is peeing in the wind. BTW-"disease" has always included misbehavior, thus MH, alcoholism, addiction, effects of pollution, etc.
Dan-your fixation on band-aid solutions (at best) are based on some shakey conclusions. I challenge that background checks would make a huuuuugh difference-or any difference at all. They didn't' seem to work in the 2 instances you referred to. BTW-I don't think the Orlando shooter was ever on an official watch list-could be mistaken. Even if he was, don't you think he could have bought a weapon on the street to do his deed? I know I could and I don't even live in that world anymore. Who compiles/secures this "list"? Who determines who is on it, esp re: MH issues? How are errors corrected? (hell, I can't even get a credit report error corrected). What is the societal cost of any entity maintaining that information/list. What would be gained? How much gun violence would be prevented by the use of such a list? Most, if not all of these questions are unanswered and possibly unanswerable. How effective is the list we presently use? The absence of a list in not the issue. Heck, gun violence is not the issue, it is a symptom. But we just can't seem to be able ,as a nation, to have that conversation. Stating It's fear doesn't do anything. IF that's true, (a big if) what are we afraid of and why are we afraid of it. Why is our response to this fear owning guns?
Questions like these and many other's are why the CDC conducting impartial research is critical. Why has the Hse specifically restricted gun violence research from the CDC budget? Do we, as a nation, have the will the address gun violence? IMHO-no.
Another example of why we never have the conversation. Anyone that promotes "taking away all the guns" is playing in the same theater of the absurd. Kinda like deporting all illegals. From a logistic point of view, just how would any entity take away the millions of guns in this country? Folks would have to do it willingly and that is not going to happen in this country. To state this as a valid fear makes no sense. Same with the "to defend against a tyrannical government". Really? Your AR -15 or whatever is going to repel the US military? Really????? Illusions of grandeur anyone? I think the term is straw man. Again, the theater of the absurd.
Maybe a good starting point is why do citizens of the US feel the need to kill each other at a significantly higher rate then citizens of other countries despite some countries having higher gun ownership rates per capita? Why do they feel the need to own weapons at a higher rate than most countries? Those might be a couple of good starting points. What is it about being an American that leads to mass shootings as a means of making a point or expressing ones self? To ask how we significantly limit weapon ownership when we all ready know the answer-we don't-is kinda silly.
The idea of background checks being some sort of effective tool to reduce gun violence is one of the "solutions" that are feel good ideas, but that's about it. Think about it. Do you really want the US govt to use it's vast collection of mined data to determine anything about your personal life. How many folks actually get declined a gun because of mental health reasons. Do you know how difficult it is to get someone declared mentally incompetent? Ever try to get a 72 hr hold on someone? I have. Many, many times and , as should be, it is very, very difficult. How would psychiatric records become available to the government to get put on this list? That and very few acts of guns violence are committed by someone that is "certifiably" mentally incompetent. (altho personally, IMO, by default if someone uses a gun to force their will on someone else that, by definition, makes them "crazy".) Anyone that has a felony record most likely has the "connections" to buy a street gun so it fails there also. This is one of those "theater of the absurd" ideas I was referring to. Let's have a real conversation that might possibly lead to effective change, not feel good stuff.
Hey-my bad. No, I don't pretend to be smart enough to know how to resolve the violence issue in America or the world for that matter. My frustration is with the unwillingness on both sides to have the conversation. One side cites the 2nd and the other presents doom and gloom followed by ineffective "solutions" (laws) and it ends there until the next event. It seems we as a nation can't have the hard conversations we need to have (on most, if not all issues) because folks dig in and refuse to listen, much less modify (or that evil word compromise) their beliefs. So we hear and say the same things over and over without any real solution or change.
I do enjoy these threads, altho I rarely enter the fray. When I do, it is usually to challenge assumptions, lines of logic, etc. I don't have a whole lot other than that to add. I am no competition for you guys. Your depth of knowledge is way deeper and way broader than mine…..even tho I often disagree with your conclusions. That's America!
Last login: today
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2017 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |