More evidence why gun ownership should always be legal

If you wanted to gather evidence for or against gun ownership, you would provide evidence that murders would either rise or decline in the absence or presence of guns. Not sensational anecdotal stories that promote your cause.

ok, Chicago... total disaster. 80% of homicides committed by guns even with a gun ban. What else do you need or would you somehow find a flaw in that?
 
no one I know wants guns banned so why is it an issue?

My permit going up 250%? I had to pay more for my new licence then I did for my new passport... yah nobody is trying to take my rights away.. In my opinion economic sanctions like that are a method to take away the right.
 
ok, Chicago... total disaster. 80% of homicides committed by guns even with a gun ban. What else do you need or would you somehow find a flaw in that?

The Chicago example is going to be a disaster because it's so ridiculously easy to import them. Things didn't go bad in UK and Australia.

Anyway, I'm not gonna argue this.
 
The Chicago example is going to be a disaster because it's so ridiculously easy to import them. Things didn't go bad in UK and Australia.

Anyway, I'm not gonna argue this.

lol the UK and Australia? come on.. we are living in America.. the melting pot of the world. Its apples and oranges. No way you can use a different less divers country to estimate how there policies would work for this country. For one thing we are loaded with immigrants just starting out.. or as some like to call them bottom rungs of society whom are more likely to commit crimes.
 
what you got against drugs??

toppy... that was actually a shot at the 'drug war'.... and at 'prohibition'. Prohibiting guns is no different than prohibiting drugs. People will still get them as long as they are manufactured somewhere in the world.
 
My permit going up 250%? I had to pay more for my new licence then I did for my new passport... yah nobody is trying to take my rights away.. In my opinion economic sanctions like that are a method to take away the right.

Now think how many are effected by skyrocketing healthcare costs
 
Becuase the system worked and Bush and team were thrown out peacefully by an election they could not manipulate enough to win.

We came close but the system worked , thank you founding fathers.

Um.... Desh... the Bush Administration was out regardless of the outcome of the election.
 
Bush was not the mastermind of the whole mess, he was just the patsy.

Remember all the Rove talk of a permanent majority
 
Now think how many are effected by skyrocketing healthcare costs

as an analyst i have a different opinion why we have skyrocketing costs. But nobody wants to listen. I can only comment on the Massachusetts hospitals but they are very very poorly run and there is no typical types of standards or metrics to track productivity like there are in other industries.

Let me use one example to wet your lips on what im talking about. Someone decides to get an elective Gastric bypass surgery. what are the measures in place to determine cost profitability? How much OR time is needed and whats that cost, how many nurses, how much recovery time. How are the nurses measured, do they have a check list of standard things to do.. how many patients should they have, is there extra fees for complications, etc.

The whole problem is the healthcare industry refuses to hire outside of healthcare.. SO you got a bunch of Heathcare major (no offense) whom are doing financial work.. And i can probably safely tell you there was a reason they got a health degree and not a finance degree.

If i ran a hospital I would have an activity based profitability on every procedure done so that we could accurately identify where we were losing money (outside of people not paying).. and I would certainly outsource collections to India or something.

SO bottom line.. hospitals are run like a clusterfuck. Its no wonder why costs are skyrocketing.
 
I could see how it would benifit from a single payer system.

If you dont worry about profit and just worry about healthcare being dilevered at its best then that would improve it greatly
 
Do we license drivers?

unconstitutionally.

The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty.... It includes the right in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day; and under existing modes of travel includes the right to drive a horse-drawn carriage or wagon thereon, or to operate an automobile thereon for the usual and ordinary purposes of life and business. It is not a mere privilege, like the privilege of moving a house in the street, operating a business stand in the street, or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which the city may permit or prohibit at will.
Thompson v. Smith, 154 S.E. 579, 1929
 
I could see how it would benifit from a single payer system.

If you dont worry about profit and just worry about healthcare being dilevered at its best then that would improve it greatly

i have no problem with delivery.. but you have to charge for the service either via tax in a national healthcare, or bills the way it is now. You cant just give people service that is not at least break even.
 
I could see how it would benifit from a single payer system.

If you dont worry about profit and just worry about healthcare being dilevered at its best then that would improve it greatly

I agree, but what we are getting is way worse than single payer.
 
Back
Top